ORDER Greed is one of the many traits of a human being but so long as it remains within a tolerable limit and does not transcend equity and law, the Court of law would have no objection thereto. But if a citizen approaches the Court of law and wants the Court to play the game at his invitation, there will be some difficulty if the facts and law do not come to his rescue. 2. The Court has reason to say so and which will be evident from a detailed assertion emerging from the records of this case. 3. Writ has been filed by the petitioner because he wants to continue in service by treating his date of birth as 15.7.1955 and as per entry made in the service book on the basis of the matriculation certificate. Such a relief has been prayed for because respondent authorities have decided to superannuate the petitioner on the basis of his age at the time of his enrollment i.e. 20.9.1953. 4. Petitioner was enrolled as a member of home guard on 11.9.1972. This enrollment was done by the Commandant, Bihar Home Guard at Saharsa. The age of the petitioner was declared as 19 years at the time of enrollment and this has significance because the minimum age for enrollment in home guard in accordance with the rules is 19 years. Anybody less than that age would not be eligible or entitled to be enrolled. After a couple of years of enrollment petitioner got an opening and was also appointed from the quota of home guard as a constable on 15.2.1975. At that point of time a matriculation certificate was tendered showing his date of birth as 15.7.1955. Petitioner continued to work under the respondents. According to him, after more than 3 decades a show cause was issued to him on 11.5.2012 as to why his date of birth should not be corrected to 20.9.1953 instead of 15.7.1955. Show cause was tendered by the petitioner. However, treating the petitioner’s date of birth as 20th September, 1953, his date of superannuation was decided as 30th September, 2013. It is in this background that writ application has now been filed for correction in the date of birth on the basis of his matriculation certificate. 5. Show cause was tendered by the petitioner. However, treating the petitioner’s date of birth as 20th September, 1953, his date of superannuation was decided as 30th September, 2013. It is in this background that writ application has now been filed for correction in the date of birth on the basis of his matriculation certificate. 5. The law is well settled that in matters of dispute of date of birth, matriculation certificate always is held to be a good document and the date of birth indicated therein ought to settle such issue. In usual course it should have been so but not in the present case. 6. The submission of the counsel is that the entry of date of birth in the service book, coupled with matriculation certificate, gives him a right to superannuate on the basis of date of birth to be 15.7.1955. No change ought to be made now at such a belated stage taking away the benefit of added service which the petitioner is entitled to because he is still to reach the age of 60. 7. From the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the State the reason for change brought about in the date of birth of the petitioner emerges. The Court directed the respondent authorities to also produce original service book for perusal. The same has been tendered to the Court and the Court has gone through the same. 8. When the petitioner initially opted to be enrolled as a home guard on the basis of his declaration that he was 19 years of age, enrollment was made. Nothing by way of proof of age was tendered and on his solemn declaration alone petitioner was enrolled. The minimum age of 19 years for enrollment is a mandatory in terms of the rules. Petitioner therefore, deliberately made a misstatement as to his actual age. Some way down the line when the petitioner became a constable and was well placed, he decided to use his matriculation certificate to acquire a date of birth in his service book. Whatever be the machination or manipulation or simplicity of transaction, the date of birth indicated in the matriculation certificate came to be incorporated in the service book on 27.12.1991. This fact stands established by looking at the service book. There is no entry of date of birth prior to that endorsement. Whatever be the machination or manipulation or simplicity of transaction, the date of birth indicated in the matriculation certificate came to be incorporated in the service book on 27.12.1991. This fact stands established by looking at the service book. There is no entry of date of birth prior to that endorsement. It is this endorsement made in the year 1991 that the petitioner wants to take advantage of. 9. The stand of the petitioner is not acceptable and was not acceptable to the authorities for the reason that if the date of birth of the petitioner was treated to be 15.7.1955 then at the time of his enrollment and training on 20th September, 1972, he was only 17 years 2 months and 5 days old. In other words, petitioner was not eligible in accordance with law to have been enrolled but had been enrolled on his solemn declaration. It is from the quota of home guard that he has now become a constable. His appointment on the post of constable was not independent of his enrollment as a home guard. In other words, his very engagement and subsequent appointment is based on mis-declaration, if not fraud and deceit. After having entered service he wants yet another windfall on the basis of a matriculation certificate procured and produced later on because the date of birth which has been recorded in the service book is after many many years of his initial engagement. 10. When this dichotomous situation was noticed by the authorities, petitioner was issued a show cause way back in the year 1996 itself and after considering the entirety of the matter an order No. 376/98 dated 12.6.1998 came to be passed by the Commandant fixing his date of birth as 20th September, 1953, treating him to be of 19 years of age, on the date he was sent for training. This order has been produced as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. On the basis of the said decision contained in Annexure-B, the service book indicates an endorsement cancelling 15.7.1955 as date of birth and changing it to 20th September, 1953. This change was necessitated due to a decision taken by the competent authority. Such position is evident from a look at the service book. On the basis of the said decision contained in Annexure-B, the service book indicates an endorsement cancelling 15.7.1955 as date of birth and changing it to 20th September, 1953. This change was necessitated due to a decision taken by the competent authority. Such position is evident from a look at the service book. There is nothing on record to show that 1998 decision and the corresponding endorsement and entry made in the service book ever became a subject of any dispute or challenge before any authority. If the matter stood settled in the year 1998, the Court has to ponder whether the same can be allowed to be raised in the year 2013 by way of a writ application indirectly trying to achieve and undo what had already been done and remains done so for more than a decade and a half now. 11. In the opinion of the Court, in normal course of things there should have been an order treating his service to be illegal, if he insists upon his date of birth to be 15.7.1955 but such a declaration may be rather harsh, therefore, the Court comes to a considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be permitted now to blow hot and cold at the same time and choose a date of birth which helps him beget advantage of almost 2 years in service and the benefit going with the office. 12. Counsel for the State has produced a judgment of this Court rendered in similar circumstances in CWJC No.854 of 2013 decided on 18.3.2013 which was the case of Om Prakash Sah vs. State of Bihar and others. The Court is tempted to reproduce some of the observations made in the said decision and in this regard paragraphs 11 and 2 are reproduced herein below: 11. Even otherwise law in this respect has been well settled that at the fag end of service career the date of birth of an employee cannot be changed. Reference in this connection may be usefully made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. T V Venugopalan reported in (1994) 6 SCC 302 , where request for such change of date of birth just before retirement was held to be rightly rejected by the employer. Reference in this connection may be usefully made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. T V Venugopalan reported in (1994) 6 SCC 302 , where request for such change of date of birth just before retirement was held to be rightly rejected by the employer. The apex Court again in the case of Secretary and Commissioner Home Department & ors vs. R. Kirubakaran, reported in 1994 Suppl (1) SCC 155 has held that when such dispute relating to date of birth is raised on the eve of superannuation, the Court or the tribunal must be slow in granting any relief. 12. There is yet another aspect which would disentitle the petitioner to claim such relief, inasmuch as, if the petitioner had declared his date of birth of 25.01.1957 at the time of his enrollment as Home Guard as 18.02.1974, he being only seventeen years of age could not have been enrolled as a Home Guard because of the specific provisions made in the Bihar Home Guard Rules prescribing 19 years of age to be the minimum age for entry in Home Guards. The petitioner on the basis of his date of birth as 25.01.1957 was only 17 years and one month. Thus if the petitioner took the advantage of his wrong declaration of age of 21 years as on 18.2.1974 at the time of enroll, he cannot be allowed to now also take the benefit of his alleged actual date of birth of 25.01.1957 for the purpose of his retirement. It is this aspect of the matter which has been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Baidyanath Prasad Sinha vs. The State of Bihar reported in 1983 LAB. I.C. 162 wherein it has been held as follows:- “There is no doubt that had he produced the matriculation certificate when he secured the employment he would not have succeeded. Having obtained an advantage which was really not available the petitioner wants to obtain further benefit i.e. premature appointment and later retirement. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is bound by his assertion and cannot now take the plea of different date of birth to the one which he had indicated at the time of his appointment.” (Emphasis mine). 13. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is bound by his assertion and cannot now take the plea of different date of birth to the one which he had indicated at the time of his appointment.” (Emphasis mine). 13. In view of the above writ application has no merit and is dismissed. 14. The Court was inclined to impose cost upon the petitioner but taking into consideration that he has already superannuated, decides to refrain but the petitioner is cautioned that a Court of Law is Court of Equity where certain amount of honesty is expected in the conduct of a citizen since he has entered the temple of justice. Court of Law is not a gambling house or a bourse where you can take your chance. The Court opines that it is calculated effort made by the petitioner to look for a gain or a windfall which is not available to him, in the given facts and legal situation. 15. The original service is returned to the State counsel for safe keeping.