JUDGMENT By Court Seeking quashing of order contained in letter dated 19.02.2005 passed by the Project Officer, Kustore Colliery Area No. 8, Dhanbad and for a direction to the respondents for consideration of actual date of birth of the petitioner as 01.07.1952 as recorded in Sirdar's Certificate dated 16.01.1985, the petitioner has moved this Court by filing the present writ petition. 2. The facts disclosed in the writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 17.10.1971 in M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited. The petitioner passed the Mining Sirdar Examination held on 14.11.1984 and accordingly, Sirdar's Certificate was issued to the petitioner on 16.01.1985. The petitioner had passed Class-VII examination in the year 1964. On 29.07.2004, the petitioner made a representation for correction of his date of birth. It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner had been representing the matter since 1993. In the year 1990 his date of birth was over-written in the identity card as 26 years as on April, 1972. The respondent No. 5 asked the petitioner to submit documents with a clarification for correction of the date of birth as 01.07.1952. The petitioner accordingly, submitted his representation / clarification on 06.10.2004. The respondent No. 5 wrote a letter to the Headmaster, Damodar Valley Corporation, Middle School, Tilaiya, Hazaribag for verification of the School leaving Certificate of the petitioner and the Headmaster of the said school had affirmed the genuineness of School Leaving Certificate by his letter dated 25.11.2004. However, the respondent No. 5 without considering the materials on record issued letter dated 19.02.2005 holding that the age mentioned in Form 'B' Register would be deemed to be correct. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation on 24.03.2005 again However, the petitioner did not receive any response from the respondents and therefore, he has filed the present writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it has been stated that in the statutory Form 'B' Register the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 26 years, as in April, 1972. The petitioner has himself signed the said Form 'B' Register and even after his transfer from Alkusha Colliery to Kustore Colliery his date of birth has been recorded in the service particulars of Kustore Colliery as 26 years as in April, 1972, however, the petitioner did not raise any objection. The petitioner has himself signed the said Form 'B' Register and even after his transfer from Alkusha Colliery to Kustore Colliery his date of birth has been recorded in the service particulars of Kustore Colliery as 26 years as in April, 1972, however, the petitioner did not raise any objection. It has further been stated that in all the official records the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 26 years as in April, 1972. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the documents on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since 1993 the petitioner had been representing his case for correction of date of birth in the service book however, the authorities in complete disregard to the official record such as School Leaving Certificate, Sirdar's Certificate and the letter of the Headmaster, Damodar Valley Corporation, Middle School, Tilaiya, Hazaribag refused to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the service book. The correct date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.1952. However, at the time of joining the service the concerned clerk entered date of birth of his choice even after production of School Leaving Certificate by the petitioner and when it came to the notice of the petitioner, he promptly made a representation in the year 1993. On these grounds he has submitted that a direction may be issued to the respondents for considering his actual date of birth as 01.07.1952. 6. The learned counsel Mr. A.K. Mehta appearing for the respondents has resisted the claim of the petitioner raising a plea that at the fag end of the service the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the dispute with respect to his date of birth. The Implementation Instruction No.76 recognise only Matriculation Certificate and therefore, the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner cannot be considered. The plea of the petitioner that the concerned clerk has entered the date of birth of the petitioner as per his own choice is unbelievable. 7. It is admitted fact that after about 33 years of service the petitioner raised a grievance with respect to his date of birth in the year 2004. Although, it has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner had been representing since 1993 for correction of his date of birth, however, no such evidence has been produced by the petitioner. Although, it has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner had been representing since 1993 for correction of his date of birth, however, no such evidence has been produced by the petitioner. It is also not disputed by the petitioner that he has himself signed the Form 'B' Register in which his date of birth has been recorded as 26 years as in April, 1972. The plea of the petitioner that at the time of his appointment the concerned clerk had entered his date of birth as per his choice cannot be believed. It is settled law that any correction in the date of birth is permissible within the period prescribed in the Rules / Circulars, if any, and if no such period is prescribed it should be corrected within a reasonable period. The petitioner even if assumed that he had been representing since 1993, has raised the grievance after 22 years of his service. 8. In “Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department and Others versus R. Kirubakaran”, reported in (1994) Supp. 1 SCC 155, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that an application for correction of date of birth should not be dealt with by the Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the employee concerned. Any such direction for correction of date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others awaiting for years below him for respective promotions are affected in this process. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under “ 8. “.........This Court has repeatedly pointed out that correction of the date of birth of public servant is permissible, but that should not be done in a casual manner. Any such order must be passed on materials produced by the public servant from which the irresistible conclusion follows that the date of birth recorded in the service book was incorrect. While disposing of any such application, the court or the tribunal, has first to examine, whether the application has been made within the prescribed period under some rule or administrative order. If there is no rule or order prescribing any period, then the court or tribunal has to examine, why such application was not made within a reasonable time after joining the service.” 9. If there is no rule or order prescribing any period, then the court or tribunal has to examine, why such application was not made within a reasonable time after joining the service.” 9. In “State of U.P. and Others versus Gulaichi (Smt)”, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 483 , a case in which the employee applied for correction of date of birth as recorded in service book at the verge of retirement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : 9. “.......Before any such direction is issued or declaration made, the court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of the date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be within at least a reasonable time. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service-book. In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the court or the Tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their date of birth in the service-books. By this process, it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after the date of superannuation. The court or the Tribual must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief or continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and thereby caused injustice to his immediate junior.” 10. The court or the Tribual must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief or continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and thereby caused injustice to his immediate junior.” 10. In “State of T.N. Versus T.V. Venugopalan”, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 302 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if there is provision under the service rules for entertaining any request for correction / alteration of the recorded date of birth within five years, an application for correction made beyond five years cannot be entertained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : 7. “.....This Court had, repeatedly, been holding that the inordinate delay in making the application is itself a ground for rejecting the correction of date of birth. 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.......” 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussion, I am of the view that the writ petition lacks merit and is therefore, dismissed.