Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC). 2. By way of the present petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 31.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner, GMC (Annexure F to the writ petition) whereby prayer of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth in terms of report of the State Standing Medical Board dated 15.9.2009 was rejected and further seeks a direction to the respondents to allow him to continue his service as per corrected age. 3. Facts of the case may be briefly noted. 4. Petitioner was a regular Mazdoor in GMC. He was appointed as such in the year 1980. At the time of entry into service, his date of birth was wrongly recorded by the GMC in his service book as 6.1.1953. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 1.7.1962. Being an illiterate person and a Mazdoor, he was not aware of the wrong recording of his date of birth. It was only in the year 2009 that he came to know that his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 6.1.1953. 5. Petitioner submitted a representation before the Commissioner, GMC (respondent No.2). The authorities of GMC decided to refer the petitioner to the State Standing Medical Board for medical examination to ascertain his age. In this connection, a letter dated 30.6.2009 was issued by the Commissioner, GMC to the Chairman, State Standing Medical Board for medical examination of the petitioner. 6. Petitioner appeared before the Medical Board on 3.8.2009. On examination, the Medical Board vide certificate dated 15.9.2009 opined that the age of the petitioner would be above 45 years but below 50 years. Despite report of the Medical Board, GMC authorities declined to rectify the date of birth of the petitioner, which was recorded in the service book. By letter dated 15.2.2010 issued by the Municipal Secretary, GMC, petitioner was informed that his application for correction of date of birth submitted after more than 25 years of his service in GMC cannot be considered. 7. At that stage, petitioner approached this court by filing a writ petition, which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.4577/2010. By letter dated 15.2.2010 issued by the Municipal Secretary, GMC, petitioner was informed that his application for correction of date of birth submitted after more than 25 years of his service in GMC cannot be considered. 7. At that stage, petitioner approached this court by filing a writ petition, which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.4577/2010. This court by the judgment and order dated 12.12.2012 set aside the letter dated 15.2.2010 and remanded the matter back to the respondent No.2 for taking a fresh decision within 15 days by taking into consideration all relevant factors, including the certificate issued by the State Standing Medical Board. 8. Thereafter, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 31.12.2012. As per the said order, petitioner's date of birth was recorded in his service book on the basis of the Medical Certificate dated 6.1.1983 and he having accepted the same by putting his thumb impression, the second certificate issued by the State Standing Medical Board cannot be acted upon. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth was rejected. 9. Aggrieved, petitioner is again before this court by way of the present petition. 10. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the submissions made in the earlier round of litigation, submits that stand taken by the respondent No.2 that second certificate of the State Standing Medical Board cannot be acted upon is devoid of any reason or logic. He submits that petitioner's date of birth was recorded on the basis of a report of the State Standing Medical Board dated 6.1.1983 wherein the Board certified the age of the petitioner to be exactly 30 years as on 6.1.1983. On that basis, the GMC authorities treated the petitioner's date of birth as 6.1.1953. On the face of it, the said certification was totally absurd and putting of thumb impression by the petitioner would not confer any legitimacy to such certification. It is in that context when the petitioner made the request for correction of his date of birth, the GMC authorities themselves referred the petitioner for medical examination by the State Standing Medical Board. This time petitioner was assessed to be above 45 years of age but below 50 years of age. It is in that context when the petitioner made the request for correction of his date of birth, the GMC authorities themselves referred the petitioner for medical examination by the State Standing Medical Board. This time petitioner was assessed to be above 45 years of age but below 50 years of age. Having itself referred the case of the petitioner to the Medical Board, there is no justification on the part of the GMC authority not to act on the certificate of the State Standing Medical Board dated 15.9.2009. Impugned order dated 31.12.2012 being wholly illegal, should, therefore, be quashed and the petitioner be directed to be continued in service as per corrected age. 11. The submissions made by Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner is opposed by Mr. S. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, GMC, who has also produced the record. Mr. Bora submits that the earlier certificate of the State Standing Medical Board dated 6.1.1983 was attached with the service book of the petitioner because of which, perhaps, it escaped his notice as well as that of the court. He submits that respondent No.2 had considered the case of the petitioner but for good reason, as is evident from the impugned order, could not be accepted. Reiterating his submissions made before the court in the earlier round of litigation, learned Standing Counsel seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 12. Submissions made have been considered. Also perused the record produced. 13. The case was heard at some length on 7.3.2013. As the hearing remained inconclusive, case was taken up on 1.4.2013 for further hearing. Petitioner was asked to be personally present before the court. Accordingly, he was present in court. The court had put some questions to him to make a rough assessment about his probable age in view of the certificate of the State Standing Medical Board dated 15.9.2009. 14. In the previous round of litigation, as noticed above, this court after quashing the letter dated 15.2.2010 remanded the matter back to the respondent No.2 for afresh decision by taking all relevant factors into consideration, including the certificate issued by the State Standing Medical Board. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under :- "11. The record produced by Mr. Borah contains the service book of the petitioner. It is seen therefrom that the petitioner was examined by a Medical Board on 6.1.1983. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under :- "11. The record produced by Mr. Borah contains the service book of the petitioner. It is seen therefrom that the petitioner was examined by a Medical Board on 6.1.1983. Date of birth has been recorded therein as 06.1.1953, according to medical certificate. Though copy of Medical Certificate is stated to have been enclosed therein, the same was however not found on record. The record discloses that petitioner had submitted an application before the Commissioner, GMC on 23.2.2009 stating that his actual date of birth is 1.7.1962 which has been wrongly entered in the service book as 6.1.1953. In support of his contention, petitioner had submitted a birth certificate of the local area authority of his permanent place of residence. A supporting affidavit sworn by the petitioner on 19.2.2009 was also annexed. It appears that case of the petitioner was forwarded by the GMC authorities to the State Standing Medical Board on 30.6.2009. Petitioner was examined by the State Standing Medical Board on 3.8.2009 for determination of age. The report of State Standing Medical Board dated 15.9.2009 indicates that as per report of Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Gauhati Medical College Hospital, Guwahati, age of petitioner would be above 45 years and below 50 years. By the impugned order dated 15.2.2010, petitioner was informed that his application for correction of date of birth could not be considered. There is no reference to the report of the State Standing Medical Board in the said order. The record also does not disclose that GMC authorities had considered the report of the State Standing Medical Board before taking the impugned decision. 12. The law relating to correction of date of birth in the service record of a Government servant or an employee of a state instrumentality is well settled and needs no re-statement. It is a settled proposition of law that prayer for correction of date of birth should not ordinarily be entertained towards the fag end of service. There is therefore no dispute to the proposition of law laid down in the judgments referred to by learned Standing Counsel, GMC. 13. SR 8 of Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules lays down the procedure for determining the date of birth of a Government servant when there is a dispute. There is therefore no dispute to the proposition of law laid down in the judgments referred to by learned Standing Counsel, GMC. 13. SR 8 of Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules lays down the procedure for determining the date of birth of a Government servant when there is a dispute. SR 8(c) provides that Commissioner and Heads of Department may alter the recorded date of birth in the case of non-gazetted Government servants provided after enquiry it is found that the previous date was incorrect. As per note below SR 8(c), it is provided that in no case request for change in the date of birth of a Government servant made on a date within 3 years of the date of his actual superannuation should be entertained. 14. As seen from the record, the application for correction of date of birth was made by the petitioner on 23.2.2009. Petitioner's date of superannuation on the basis of existing date of birth is 6.1.2013. Therefore, technically, such application was made before the period of 3 years. Since in this case, the GMC authorities had themselves decided that the petitioner should be subjected to a medical examination and accordingly he was so subjected, fairness demands that the result of the said examination should have been considered before taking the impugned decision. As adverted to above, from a reading of the impugned order dated 15.2.2010 it does not appear that the authority had considered the report of the Medical Board. 15. The State Standing Medical Board comprises of high level health officials of the Government of Assam headed by the Additional Director of Health Services as its Chairman. Petitioner was examined by an expert of Forensic Medicine Department, Gauhati Medical College Hospital. There is no reason to believe that such a high level expert body will give a report without fair and proper assessment. It is an independent body. When its opinion was sought for, it is only reasonable that the same should be given due consideration. As pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, in an earlier case of one Shri Vijay Shah, his date of birth was corrected in his service book on the basis of the findings of State Standing Medical Board. Learned Standing Counsel, GMC has not been able to show any distinguishing feature in the present case for adopting a different approach. 16. The apprehension expressed by Mr. Learned Standing Counsel, GMC has not been able to show any distinguishing feature in the present case for adopting a different approach. 16. The apprehension expressed by Mr. Borah, learned Standing Counsel that any decision in this case will open the flood gates, does not merit much consideration as the court is only concerned with the merit of the case which is before it. Each case will have to be decided as per its own merit. 17. As the report of the State Standing Medical Board which had determined the age of the petitioner as above 45 years and below 50 years of age as on 3.8.2009 has not been considered by the authority, the court is of the view that the matter requires re-consideration by the GMC authorities. 18. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.2.2010 is set aside and quashed. Matter is remanded back to the respondent No. 2 who shall take a fresh decision on the claim of the petitioner by taking into consideration all relevant factors, including the certificate issued by the State Standing Medical Board. 19. Such decision shall be taken within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order." 15. On remand, respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 31.12.2012 without giving due consideration to the certificate dated 15.9.2009 issued by the State Standing Medical Board which assessed the age of the petitioner to be within 45 to 50 years. Respondent No. 2 rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner's date of birth was recorded in his service book on the basis of the Medical Certificate issued on 6.1.1983 and he had accepted the same by putting his thumb impression in the service book. Order dated 31.12.2012 is as under: "OFFICE OF THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION:: GUWAHATI No. GPR/1506/83/100 Date: 31.12.2012 ORDER Perused the judgment and order dated 12.12.2012 passed in WP(C) No.4577/2010 (P. Achiya Babu v. GMC and Ors.) whereby the relating to correction of date of birth of the petitioner, i.e., P. Achiya Babu has been remanded back for a fresh decision of his claim by taking into consideration all relevant factors including the certificate issued by the State Standing Medical Board dated 15.9.2009. In considering the matter, the personal file of the concerned employee has been scrutinized. In considering the matter, the personal file of the concerned employee has been scrutinized. It appears that the Medical Board after examining Sri P. Achiya Babu on 6.1.1983 had recorded a finding that he was 30 years as on that date. Accordingly, his date of birth was recorded as 6.1.1953 in the Service Book. He has accepted the same to be correct by putting his thumb impression on the Service Book which was opened on 5.7.1983. Thereafter, he filed a representation 23.2.2009 and submitted a birth certificate along with the same, by which his date of birth is stated to be 1.7.1962. Accordingly the matter was forwarded to the State Standing Medical Board. The said board by its letter dated 15.9.2009 forwarded a Medical Certificate by which his age was determined was above 45 and below 50 years. His prayer for correction of date of births was rejected on the ground of inordinate delay and the same was communicated to be vide order dated 15.2.2010. Being aggrieved Sri P. Achiya Babu preferred the aforementioned writ petition. On perusal of the records it appears that there is a certificate on record issued by the Medical Board on 6.1.1983 stating that his age was 30 years as on 6.1.1983 an accordingly his date of birth was recorded as 6.1.1953. It appears from a reading of the judgment and order dated 12.12.2012 that the said document has perhaps escaped the notice of the hon'ble Court. Now the certificate issued by the State Standing Medical Board dated 15.9.2009 states that his age 45 to 50 years as on 3.8.2009 which means that his date of birth is in between 15.9.1959 and 15.9.1964. The date of birth of Sri P. Achiya Babu having been recorded on the basis of a Medical Certificate issued on 6.1.1983 and he, having accepted the same to be correct by putting his thumb impression on 5.7.1983 when the Service Book was opened, the authority is of the opinion that the second certificate dated 15.9.2009 issued by the State Standing Medical Board cannot be acted upon. In view of the above, on consideration of the materials on record, the prayer of Sri P. Achiya Babu for correction of his date of birth in terms of the letter dated 15.9.2009 issued by the State Standing Medical Board cannot be considered and accordingly stands rejected. Commissioner Guwahati Municipal Corporation Guwahati." 16. In view of the above, on consideration of the materials on record, the prayer of Sri P. Achiya Babu for correction of his date of birth in terms of the letter dated 15.9.2009 issued by the State Standing Medical Board cannot be considered and accordingly stands rejected. Commissioner Guwahati Municipal Corporation Guwahati." 16. In the earlier judgment dated 12.12.2012, this court noted that the Medical Certificate dated 6.1.1983 was not found on record. Now, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the said certificate was attached with the service book of the petitioner because of which perhaps it escaped his notice as well as that of the court. Without commenting on this aspect, court would instead like to proceed with the matter and decide the case on the basis of the materials now placed before the court. 17. Petitioner's date of birth was not recorded in his service book on the basis of any school certificate or such other document. It was recorded on the basis of a Medical Certificate dated 6.1.1983 which certified petitioner's age as on the said date to be exactly 30 years. By accepting petitioner's age to be 30 years as on 6.1.1983, the GMC authority recorded petitioner's date of birth as 6.1.1953. It is beyond one's comprehension as to how a Medical Certificate can declare the age of a person with such pin point accuracy to be exactly 30 years as on 6.1.1983. This itself is quite absurd and bereft of any logical foundation. Petitioner being an illiterate person and a mazdoor, his position cannot be equated with a literate Government employee. Had the date of birth been recorded on the basis of matriculation certificate or such other document, the matter would have been entirely different. 18. The physical appearance of the petitioner as seen by the court may justify the assessment of the petitioner's age by the State Standing Medical Board in its certificate dated 15.9.2009. 19. As already noticed in the previous judgment, the GMC authorities had themselves referred the petitioner to the State Standing Medical Board for an assessment of his age. The Board comprises of high level officials of the Health Department, Government of Assam, including an expert of Forensic Medicine Department, Gauhati Medical College. 19. As already noticed in the previous judgment, the GMC authorities had themselves referred the petitioner to the State Standing Medical Board for an assessment of his age. The Board comprises of high level officials of the Health Department, Government of Assam, including an expert of Forensic Medicine Department, Gauhati Medical College. It is a high level independent expert body and there is no reason to believe that such a body will give a report without fair and proper assessment. When its opinion was sought for, it is only fair and reasonable that it should be given due consideration. From a perusal of the impugned order, it does not appear that it was given the due consideration. 20. It is not that GMC has not corrected the date of birth of its employees on the basis of findings of the State Standing Medical Board. As indicated by this court in the earlier judgment dated 12.12.2012, in the case of one Shri Vijay Shah, his date of birth was corrected in his service book on the basis of the findings of the State Standing Medical Board and the learned Standing Counsel, GMC could not show any distinguishing feature in the case of the petitioner for adopting a different approach. 21. The impugned order dated 31.12.2012 is not as per the judgment of this court dated 12.12.2012. The same is accordingly set aside and quashed. Respondents shall now make a re-assessment of the age of the petitioner on the basis of the certificate of the State Standing Medical Board dated 15.9.2009 and such other documents as may be considered relevant and allow the petitioner of rejoin service on the basis of the corrected date of birth. Petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in service during the interregnum. This shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 22. Writ petition is allowed. 23. No cost. ___________________