Judgment :- Joymalya Bagchi, J. These appeals are directed against the same judgment and order dated 26th June, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge partly allowing the writ petition and directing the employer M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited to hold an age test in any government hospital at Dhanbad and to take a decision thereon as to the date of birth of the petitioner by 15th July, 2003. The appellant writ petitioner has challenged this order being APOT No. 307 of 2013 praying that the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the correction of his date of birth from 1953 to 05.11.1959 on the basis of Birth Certificate issued by State of Jharkhand annexed to the writ petition. On the other hand, respondent employer M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited has challenged the order in APOT No. 314 of 2013. Mr. Partha Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that Form ‘B’ register maintained by M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited was patently inaccurate inasmuch as his date of birth was shown as 00.00.1953. He further submitted that date and month were not mentioned in the document. He further submitted relying on annexure P/2 of his writ petition (page 34) that he had raised an age dispute stating that his original date of birth was 05.11.1959 and such dispute was endorsed on the document. He further submitted that he made a representation on 18.07.1987 to the Manager of Chapapur II Colliery enclosing his Birth Certificate issued by the State of Jharkhand and that no steps were taken with regard thereto. He further submitted that his case was recommended by the authorities of Chapapur II Colliery. He, therefore, submitted that appropriate direction be issued for correction of his date of birth in terms of the Birth Certificate issued by the State of Jharkhand. He relied on (2011) 11 SCC 553 , (2011) 3 CLJ Cal 157 and (2008) 2 CHN 259 in support of his contention. Mr. Majumder, learned senior advocate appearing for the employer M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited submitted that the annexure P/2 relied on by the writ petitioner is not genuine. He drew out attention to paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited wherein such contention has been raised. He has produced the original Form ‘B’ register before us in the course of hearing which did not contain the purported objection of the employee/writ petitioner. He drew out attention to paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited wherein such contention has been raised. He has produced the original Form ‘B’ register before us in the course of hearing which did not contain the purported objection of the employee/writ petitioner. He also submitted that Birth Certificate was not produced by the writ petitioner employee at the time of his appointment or even thereafter on 1987 when he allegedly raised age dispute. The same has been obtained as late as on 2011 and does not appear to be an authentic document. He further submitted that the writ petitioner ought not to have been permitted to raise dispute as to his age immediately prior to his retirement. He submitted that direction for holding examination by a medical board was not in consonance with procedure for determination/verification of age of employees, as embodied implementation instruction No. 76 which is binding on the employer. He also submitted that the case of the petitioner was considered by the three men committee and turned down by its report dated 23.05.2012. He submitted that the impugned order be set aside. We have considered the submissions of the parties. We have perused the original Form ‘B’ register produced by Mr. Majumder which does not contain any endorsement as to objection relating to age. This throws serious doubt as to the authenticity of the document, which is annexed as annexure P/2 to the writ petition, wherein such a purported objection is endorsed. In fact, in the affidavit-in-opposition, particularly in paragraph 9 thereof, the authenticity of the said document was questioned and a copy of the original document was also annexed thereto. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner strenuously argued that various copies of the Form ‘B’ register were maintained and he had endorsed his objection on one of the copies. He also pointed out that a letter was written for age correction in 1987 to the Manager of the colliery being annexure P/3 to the writ petition. We are not impressed by such submission of the writ petitioner. We have perused the original document and we do not find any objection endorsed on behalf of the writ petitioner with regard to the age entry in the ‘B’ register. We are not impressed by such submission of the writ petitioner. We have perused the original document and we do not find any objection endorsed on behalf of the writ petitioner with regard to the age entry in the ‘B’ register. Attending facts and circumstances also make it highly improbable that the writ petitioner, in fact, endorsed an objection in the Form ‘B’ register in 1987. The writ petitioner had kept silent for more than two decades and thereafter raised the dispute again in 2011, that is, just two years prior to his retirement. Strange enough, the Birth Certificate relied on by the petitioner was also purportedly registered on 01.12.2011 immediately thereafter he raised the dispute as to his age. There is no explanation as to why any Birth Certificate was not produced by the petitioner earlier. Had he been in possession of such certificate he would have produced it at the time of his appointment or even in 1987 when he alleges to have raised the age dispute for the first time. In fact, in 1987 there is no reference to the Birth Certificate in question. These attending facts and circumstances led us to the irresistible conclusion that no genuine age dispute was raised by the petitioner in 1987 and that having procured a Birth Certificate in 2011, that is, just prior to his retirement, the petitioner has made this desperate attempt alter his age as maintained in his service record. Having perused the original Form ‘B’ register, we have reasons to belief that no entry was, in fact, made disputing the age of the writ petitioner employee in 1987, as claimed by him. Hence, we are of the view that there is no dispute as to the age recorded in the statutory register of the employer was raised. Instructions laying down procedure for determination of age dispute of employees, inter alia, provide for age determination by a medical board in the event there is variation in the age recorded in the service record. The relevant procedure is set out herein below : “Review/determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees. Instructions laying down procedure for determination of age dispute of employees, inter alia, provide for age determination by a medical board in the event there is variation in the age recorded in the service record. The relevant procedure is set out herein below : “Review/determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees. i) (a) In the case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards/Institutions prior to the date of employment. i) (b) Similarly, Mining Sirdarship, Winding Engine or similar other statutory certificates where the Manager had to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic. Provided that where both documents mentioned in (i) (a) and (i) (b) above are available, the date of birth recorded in (i) (a) will be treated as authentic. ii) Wherever there is no variation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. The Management after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction of age by Age Determination Committee/Medical Board. (c) Age Determination Committee/Medical Board for the above will be constituted by the Management. In the case of employees whose date of birth cannot be determined in accordance with the procedure mentioned in (B) (i) (a) or (B) (i) (b) above, the date of birth recorded in the records of the company, namely, Form B register, CMPF Records and Identity Cards (Untampered) will be treated as final. Provided that where there is a variation in the age recorded in the records mentioned above; the matter will be referred to the Age Determination Committee/ Medical Board constituted by the Management for determination of age.” It is trite law that a person must approach the Court with clean hands. In the facts of this case, we are constrained to doubt the bonafides of the petitioner who has approached this Court with documents of suspicious authenticity. In the instant case we seriously doubt the genuineness of the claim of the writ petitioner that he raised the age dispute in 1987. In the facts of this case, we are constrained to doubt the bonafides of the petitioner who has approached this Court with documents of suspicious authenticity. In the instant case we seriously doubt the genuineness of the claim of the writ petitioner that he raised the age dispute in 1987. The documents enclosed with the writ petition in support of such claim does not inspite confidence. The Birth Certificate produced at the fag end career in 2011 also does not pass muster. In the absence of any credible material such vague and covert efforts at the fag end of the career ought not to have been the foundation for a direction for medical examination to determine the age of the employee for the purpose of correcting service record. Claim for age correction is not a matter of course and that too at the fag end of the career. A strong case with materials of unimpeachable quality must be made out by the employee so as to create a duty upon the employer to embark into an enquiry as to determination of age and/or correction of the same. In the facts of the case, the petitioner cannot be said to have made out such a case for necessitating age correction or even embarking on an enquiry by holding a medical board as directed by the learned Single Judge. In Narinder Kaur Vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court & Ors. (2011) 11 SCC 553 the Supreme Court held that no enquiry, much less a special enquiry, was held after receipt of the claim for change of date of birth. In the instant case a three member committee was constituted to look into the matter and the report of the said committee went against the petitioner. The said case is, therefore, distinguishable on facts. In Gadadhar Konar Vs. The Union of India & Ors. (2011) 3 CLJ Cal 157 last pay certificate of the petitioner bore a separate date of birth which was held to be a credible piece of material inconsistent with the entries in the service records. In the instant case we are not convinced as to the genuineness of the documents relied on by the petitioner to dispute his age as entered in the service records. In Bajrangi Rabidas Vs. Chairman, Managing Director, E.C.L. Ltd. & Ors. In the instant case we are not convinced as to the genuineness of the documents relied on by the petitioner to dispute his age as entered in the service records. In Bajrangi Rabidas Vs. Chairman, Managing Director, E.C.L. Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 2 CHN 259 the Division Bench of this Court held that implementation instruction No. 76 ought to be followed by respondent employer. In the instant case implementation instruction No. 76, in fact, does not come to the aid of the petitioner and we are unable to follow as to how the said decision is of any help to the writ petitioner. In State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors. (2010) 14 SCC 423 the Supreme Court succinctly summarised the legal interdict in entertaining age disputes at the fag end of the service career of an employee in the following words :- “12. ………... this Court in a series of cases has categorically laid down that the employees should not be permitted to change the date of birth at the fag end of their service career. In the instant case the application of alteration has been filed at the fag end of his service career after a lapse of twenty eight years. 13. In Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 , this Court was confronted with almost similar facts. The Court laid down as under : (SCC pp. 172-73, para 15) “15. In the instant case, the date of birth recorded at the time of entry of the respondent into service as 20.05.1934 had continued to exist, unchallenged between 1956 and September 1991, for almost three and a half decades. The respondent had the occasion to see his service-book on numerous occasions. He signed the service-book at different places at different points of time. Never did he object to the recorded entry. The same date of birth was also reflected in the seniority lists of LDC and UDC, which the respondent had admittedly seen, as there is nothing on the record to show that he had no occasion to see the same. He remained silent and did not seek the alteration of the date of birth till September 1991, just a few months prior to the date of his superannuation. He remained silent and did not seek the alteration of the date of birth till September 1991, just a few months prior to the date of his superannuation. Inordinate and unexplained delay or laches on the part of the respondent to seek the necessary correction would in any case have justified the refusal of relief to him. Even if the respondent had sought correction of the date of birth within five years after 1979, the earlier delay would not have non-suited him but he did not seek correction of the date of birth during the period of five years after the incorporation of Note 5 to FR 56 in 1979 either. His inaction for all this period of about thirty-five year from the date of joining service, therefore precludes him from showing that the entry of his date of birth in service record was not correct.” 14. In State of T. N. Vs. T.V. Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302 , this court was clearly of the opinion that the government servant should not be permitted to correct the date of birth at the fag end of his service career. The Court, in very strong terms, observed as under : (SCC p. 307, para 7) “7. … The government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service register. It is common phenomenon that just before superannuation, an application would be made to the Tribunal or Court just to gain time to continue in service and the Tribunal or courts are unfortunately unduly liberal in entertaining and allowing the government employees or public employees to remain in office, which is adding an impetus to resort to the fabrication of the record and place reliance thereon and seek the authority to correct it. When rejected, on grounds of technicalities, question them and remain in office till the period claimed for, gets expired. This case is one such stark instance. When rejected, on grounds of technicalities, question them and remain in office till the period claimed for, gets expired. This case is one such stark instance. Accordingly, in our view, the Tribunal has grossly erred in showing overindulgence in granting the reliefs even trenching beyond its powers of allowing him to remain in office for two years after his date of superannuation even as per his own case and given all conceivable directions beneficial to the employee. It is, therefore, a case of the grossest error of law committed by the Tribunal which cannot be countenanced and cannot be sustained on any ground.....” 15. In Secretary and Commissioner, Home Deptt. & Ors. v. R. Kirubakaran, (1994) Suppl. (1) SCC 155, the Court again reiterated the legal position that the courts have to be extremely careful when application for alteration of the date of birth is filed on the eve of superannuation or near-about that time. The court observed as under:-(SCC p. 160, para 9) “.9. ... As such whenever an application for alteration of the date of birth is made on the eve of superannuation or near about that time, the court or the tribunal concerned should be more cautious because of the growing tendency amongst a section of public servants to raise such a dispute without explaining as to why this question was not raised earlier.......” 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Vs. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, (2005) 11 SCC p. 465.In this case, this Court has considered a number of judgments of this Court and observed that the grievance as to the date of birth in the service record should not be permitted at the fag end of the service career. 17. In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Pitamber Dutt Semwal, (2005) 11 SCC p.477, the relief was denied to the government employee on the ground that he sought correction in the service record after nearly 30 years of service. While setting aside the judgment of the High Court, this Court observed that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision after almost three decades. 18. Two decades ago this Court in Govt. While setting aside the judgment of the High Court, this Court observed that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision after almost three decades. 18. Two decades ago this Court in Govt. of A.P. v. M. Hayagreev Sarma, (1990) 2 SCC p. 682, has held that subsequent claim for alteration after commencement of the rules even on the basis of extracts of entry contained in births and deaths register maintained under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886, was not open. Reliance was also placed on State of U. P. v. Gulaichi (Smt.), (2003) 6 SCC p. 483, State of T. N. v. T.V. Venugopalan, (supra), Executive Engineer, Bhadrak (R&B) Division, Orissa & Ors. v. Rangadhar Mallik, (1993) Suppl. 1 SCC p. 763, Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (supra) and Secretary and Commissioner, Home Deptt. & Ors. v. R. Kribakaran. 19. These decisions lead to a different dimension of the case that correction at the fag end would be at the cost of a large number of employees, therefore, any correction at the fag end must be discouraged by the Court. The relevant portion of the judgment in Home Deptt. v. R. Kribakaran, (supra) reads as under : (SCC pp. 158-59, para 7) “7. An application for correction of the date of birth [by a public servant cannot be entertained at the fag end of his service]. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion forever. … According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. … According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the court must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. … the onus is on the applicant to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service-book.” Accordingly, we do not find any reason as to why any enquiry is to be embarked by the respondent employer by constituting a medical board for determining the age of the writ petitioner as directed by the First Court. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The appeal being A.P.O.T. No. 314 of 2013 is allowed and A.P.O.T. No. 307 of 2013 stands dismissed, and all connected applications are disposed of accordingly.