Judgment R. DASH, J. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3.7.2001 and 13.7.2001, respectively, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in T.A. Case No.9 of 1998 reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.1.1998 and 7.2.1998, respectively, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jagatsinghpur in T.S. No.167 of 1997, the plaintiff-appellant has filed this Second Appeal. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit are respondent Nos.1 and 2, respectively, in this appeal. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that his date of birth is 23.10.1947 and that the date ‘3.8.1939’ which finds entry in his Service Book as his date of birth is incorrect. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was initially appointed as a Khalasi (Labourer) under Paradip Port Trust in the year 1963 and at the time of filing of the suit he was working as a M.V. Driver. With regard to opening of the plaintiff’s Service Book and the disputed entry therein, plaintiff’s case is that in the year 1966 when his Service Book was opened he had produced one horoscope evidencing his date of birth. At that time his signatures were obtained on some blank papers and the horoscope was returned to him. He had no opportunity to know as to what were the entries made in his Service Book maintained by the Defendants in course of his service period. In December 1996 he came to know for the first time that the entry in respect of his date of birth was wrong. Since he was going to be superannuated very shortly he made a representation to the Defendants on 31.12.1996 for necessary correction of his date of birth in his Service Book. On 18.2.1997 the Defendants replied to the effect that on verification made in the year 1987 his date of birth was settled as ‘3.8.1939’. The authorities refused to correct his date of birth vide letter dated 11.4.1997. Hence the suit. 3. The Defendants in their written statement have contended that the plaintiff having failed to apply for correction of date of birth within five years of opening of the Service Book, he is estopped from making such a move at the fag end of his service career. Hence the suit. 3. The Defendants in their written statement have contended that the plaintiff having failed to apply for correction of date of birth within five years of opening of the Service Book, he is estopped from making such a move at the fag end of his service career. In respect of the disputed entry in the Service Book, the Defendants admit that on the basis of plaintiff’s statement, his age was recorded as 24 years. The plaintiff put his signature on the Service Book having understood the entries made therein. After opening of the Service Book he had got several opportunities to verify the entries made therein from time to time. Having served for a long period and at the fag end of his career the plaintiff approached the authorities for correction of his date of birth basing on fabricated documents. According to the Defendants, if the plaintiff’s correct date of birth is 3.8.1939 then he was below 18 years of age as on the date of his joining, i.e., 3.8.1963 and on that event he could not have been appointed on the ground of under age. 4. After analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties, learned trial court accepted the stand taken by the plaintiff and held that the entry in the Service Book is incorrect and the plaintiff’s correct date of birth is 23.10.1947. The Defendants went in appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. In the appeal the learned lower appellate court, observing that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence properly, held that the date of birth recorded in the Service Book is correct. 5. The Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1) Whether the learned lower appellate court while considering the evidentiary value of Ext.5, a Birth Certificate granted by a competent authority in due discharge of his public duty, has adopted an erroneous approach ? 2) Whether the learned lower appellate court has committed error of law and procedure in not considering the findings of the learned trial court on Issue Nos.5 and 6 ? 3) Whether the decision reported in AIR 1993 SC 1367 has been wrongly applied by the learned lower appellate court to the present case to hold that the suit is barred by limitation ? 6. 3) Whether the decision reported in AIR 1993 SC 1367 has been wrongly applied by the learned lower appellate court to the present case to hold that the suit is barred by limitation ? 6. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial court recorded findings on Issue Nos.5 and 6 taking into consideration all the relevant facts available on record whereas the learned lower appellate court has not recorded its own independent finding on those issues. 7. Ext.A is the Service Book. Ext.A/1 is the first page of the Service Book which contains the disputed entry. D.W.1 claims that he made the original entry in all the columns of the first page of the Service Book. He is unable to say on what basis he has made the entries. At the same time he has also stated that the entry regarding the date of birth made in the first page might have been on the basis of a horoscope. He has further stated that after the entries were made in the first page of the Service Book the plaintiff had put his signature therein. It is not denied by the plaintiff-appellant that his signature appears on the first page of the Service Book but his plea is that his signature was taken on a blank form. Admittedly, the plaintiff’s date of joining with the defendant is on 3.8.1963 and the Service Book was opened about 3 years thereafter on 12.06.1966. Plaintiff disputed the correctness of his date of birth for the first time on 31.12.1996 when he made representation before his authority for correction of his date of birth to which D.W.3 gave reply vide Ext.2 stating that after due verification during 1987 his date of birth was settled to be 3.8.1939. Ext.2 reflects that the plaintiff had made a representation on 31.12.1996 for correction of his date of birth. The plaintiff has neither pleaded nor proved that prior to 31.12.1996 he had made any representation. D.W.3 says that in the first page of the Service Book the date of birth mentioned in words was written by one Clerk and he himself put his endorsement, Ext.A/3, below that entry. Ext. A/3 reflects that D.W.3 has put his signature on 7.2.1997. Thus, it is found that on 7.2.1997 there was a subsequent addition to the original entries made in the first page of the Service Book. Ext. A/3 reflects that D.W.3 has put his signature on 7.2.1997. Thus, it is found that on 7.2.1997 there was a subsequent addition to the original entries made in the first page of the Service Book. 8. Be that as it may, the original entry made in the first page of the Service Book reflects that in the column meant for “Date of birth by Christian Era” it is recorded as “24 years old”. In the same column the date “3.8.1939” has been made. The original entry reflects that the plaintiff was 24 years old at the relevant time. The facts that the plaintiff has put his signature on the very first page of the Service Book and that impressions of his left hand thumb and of all other fingers taken on the reverse of the cover page of the Service Book duly attested by the authority (defendant No.1), give rise to a presumption that the Service Book was opened and the initial entries were made in the presence of the plaintiff. It gives rise to further presumption that the plaintiff, at the time the Service Book was opened, failed to furnish proof of his date of birth but he could mention how old he was at the relevant time. After 30 years of opening of the Service Book and on the verge of his superannuation, to be effected on the basis of the age recorded in the Service Book, he made a representation for correction of his date of birth. He was due to retire on 31.8.1997, and he filed the suit on 16.7.1997. These factual aspects are necessary for proper appreciation of the substantial questions of law. 9. Learned trial Court relying on one horoscope (Ext.1) and one Birth Certificate (Ext.5) held that plaintiff’s correct date of birth is 23.10.1947. Learned trial Court observed that the horoscope has been admitted without objection, that the evidence of the astrologer (P.W.4) who claims to have prepared the horoscope on the 21st day of birth of the plaintiff could not be demolished by the defendant, that the defendant failed to prove that the horoscope is a forged document and that the defendant also failed to prove that the horoscope-Ext.1 and the horoscope which plaintiff had produced at the time of opening of his Service Book are not one and the same. The entry in the Service Book regarding the date of birth being found to have been made in different hands it was held to have been manipulated. The Birth Certificate was accepted by the learned trial Court observing that the information stated therein was taken from original record of birth and that the defendant on its part had failed to prove that the Magistrate had made a mechanical inquiry before passing the order Ext.10 to issue birth certificate showing that plaintiff was born on 30.10.1947. 10. Learned lower Appellate Court has set aside the judgment of the learned trial Court observing that the learned S.D.M. without proper inquiry passed order for issuance of Birth Certificate showing the plaintiff to have born on 23.10.1947. It has further observed that the original entry in the Service Book showing that plaintiff was aged about 24 years when he entered into service and, therefore, the subsequent entry made in the Service Book showing his date of birth is 3.8.1939 which is simply on arithmetical calculation, does not amount to manipulation of the original entry with regard to plaintiff’s age. According to the lower Appellate Court the date of birth evidenced by the horoscope and the Birth Certificate is prima facie incorrect inasmuch as the plaintiff, as per that date of birth, was a minor at the time of his entry into service for which he could not have been employed under the defendants as on 31.8.1963. Learned lower Appellate Court further observed that in a proposal made by the plaintiff for obtaining one LIC policy way back in March 1980, he had mentioned his date of birth as 3.8.1939 and thereby admitted that his date of birth is 3.8.1939. It is further observed that the birth certificate as well as the horoscope has been created for the purpose of this case. 11. From the above mentioned observations of the learned lower appellate court, it is wrong to say that the Court has not considered the findings of the trial court on Issue Nos.5 and 6. It is true that while deciding the appeal on merit, the learned lower Appellate Court has not dealt with each and every observation made by the learned trial Court on the evidence adduced by the parties on the plaintiff’s date of birth. It is true that while deciding the appeal on merit, the learned lower Appellate Court has not dealt with each and every observation made by the learned trial Court on the evidence adduced by the parties on the plaintiff’s date of birth. But it cannot be said that learned lower Appellate Court did not record its own findings on Issue Nos.5 and 6. 12. The Birth Certificate does not appear to have been issued on the basis of any information on record which can be said to be contemporaneous to the plaintiff’s birth. It appears, after accrual of the dispute the plaintiff filed a Misc. Case before the S.D.M., Jajpur and obtained the order (Ext.10) which reflects that it was passed on the basis of inquiry report of the Tahasildar, Binjharpur, report of the O.I.C. Binjharpur P.S. and statements of two witnesses. It does not indicate that any horoscope was taken into consideration. It is not known what is the basis of the report of the Tahasildar as well as of the Police. If those are on hearsay materials then those are devoid of evidentiary value. On the other hand, if those are based on any primary entry in any Public Record then the entry in that record should have been placed before the learned S.D.M. or before the learned trial court. The astrologer (P.W.4) claims to have prepared a contemporaneous document, i.e., the horoscope marked Ext.1. But neither the order of the S.D.M. (Ext.10) does reflect nor the astrologer himself has deposed in the Court that the horoscope prepared by the astrologer was placed before the S.D.M. Therefore, the Birth Certificate which is issued in the year 1997 cannot form the basis of determination of the plaintiff’s date of birth. 13. That apart, if the horoscope is the only contemporaneous record as to the plaintiff’s date of birth then the Birth Certificate is an unnecessary document, even if issued under a statute. The Birth Certificate has been issued “on the basis of the original record of birth which is in the Register for Binjharpur C.H.C. of 1997” (This is certified in Ext.5). Learned trial court has observed that even though it was issued in 1997, the information it contained is taken from the original record of birth. The Birth Certificate has been issued “on the basis of the original record of birth which is in the Register for Binjharpur C.H.C. of 1997” (This is certified in Ext.5). Learned trial court has observed that even though it was issued in 1997, the information it contained is taken from the original record of birth. Perhaps the trial court is of the view that the entry in the original record of birth with regard to plaintiff’s date of birth was contemporaneous to plaintiff’s birth. But, it is not so. The record is of the year 1997 which is evident from Ext.5. The entry in the Register of Birth of the year 1997 has been made only on the basis of the order of the Executive Magistrate vide Ext.10 which was passed after an enquiry. But the evidence collected during the enquiry does not appear to be direct in nature. So, the result of such fact finding enquiry is of no consequence. That apart, the learned trial court has wrongly placed onus on the employer to prove that the enquiry was mechanical. In the light of the discussion made above, it is held that learned appellate court has rightly discarded the Birth Certificate (Ext.5). 14. So far the horoscope is concerned, it is found that the defendants have failed to demolish the evidence of P.W.4 who claims to have prepared the horoscope on the 21st day of plaintiff’s birth. It is true that evidence of P.W.4 remains unassailed. But the horoscope is not in the nature of conclusive evidence. While considering such evidence other attending circumstances are to be taken into consideration and the learned lower appellate court has dealt with such circumstances in the impugned judgment. The original entry in the Service Book that the plaintiff was 24 years old at the time of entry into his service stood unchallenged for about three decades. The subsequent entry in the Service Book showing the date of birth as 3.8.1939 is not an interpolation of the original entry either reducing or enhancing the plaintiff’s age which is reflected in the original entry of the Service Book. The subsequent entry though claimed to have been made on the basis of a vigilance report, is nothing but merely crystallizing the date of birth by simply deducting 24 years from the date the plaintiff joined in his service, i.e., 3.8.1963. The subsequent entry though claimed to have been made on the basis of a vigilance report, is nothing but merely crystallizing the date of birth by simply deducting 24 years from the date the plaintiff joined in his service, i.e., 3.8.1963. Therefore, it cannot be said that the subsequent addition in his Service Book has been done to the prejudice of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the original entry in the Service Book showing the age of the plaintiff makes it evident that at the time of opening of the Service Book the plaintiff was not aware of his actual date of birth for which he simply stated his age. Therefore, the very existence of the horoscope is doubtful. 15. In Ext.B, a proposal put-forth by the plaintiff on 30.3.1980 for obtaining Insurance policy on his own life, his date of birth is mentioned as 3.8.1939. Learned trial court has discarded this piece of evidence observing that the entries made in Ext.B were on the basis of information supplied not by the plaintiff but by the Management of Paradip Port Trust. But this is totally a careless observation. The learned trial Court has stated in the judgment that D.W.2 has admitted in his deposition that the entries made in Ext.B were on the basis of opinion supplied by the Management. But the trial court failed to take note of the fact that P.W.2 has categorically stated that he joined in L.I.C. only in the year 1984 whereas the proposal was made in 1980. The witness has further stated that the entries made in Ext.B were not made by him and that he does not have any personal knowledge regarding such entries. Having stated so, the witness at subsequent stage has curiously admitted to a leading question put to him that all the entries made in Ext.B were as per information supplied by the Management as well as on the basis of the Service Book. If the evidence of this witness is considered in its totality then his admission to the leading question deserves no consideration. 16. That apart, if the date of birth as claimed by the plaintiff is accepted to be correct, then he was a minor aged below 16 years of age by the time he joined in service. If the evidence of this witness is considered in its totality then his admission to the leading question deserves no consideration. 16. That apart, if the date of birth as claimed by the plaintiff is accepted to be correct, then he was a minor aged below 16 years of age by the time he joined in service. The plaintiff has neither pleaded nor proved that persons below 16 years of age were eligible for being recruited to the post of Khalasi or any other post of the same cadre in Paradip Port Trust. Of course, the defendants have also not cited any Service Rules showing what was the minimum age prescribed for such recruitment. But, even in the absence of such pleadings there can be a valid presumption that persons below the age of 16 years of age could not have been employed in an establishment like Paradip Port Trust. 17. If all these attending circumstances are taken into consideration, the horoscope admitted in evidence even though without any objection, does not inspire credibility. Learned lower appellate court has, therefore, rightly refused to accept the evidence on record showing the plaintiff’s date of birth as 23.10.1947. From the discussions made above, it cannot be said that the appellate court has committed error of law as well as procedure in not considering the findings of the learned trial court on Issue Nos.5 and 6. 18. Even if the horoscope is found to have been duly proved and the evidence on it remains undemolished, the filing of a suit with prayer for correction of date of birth in the Service Book just on the verge of retirement of the employee is highly disapproved of by the Apex Court. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned lower appellate court has wrongly applied the decision reported in AIR 1993 SC 1367 (Union of India V. Harnam Singh) to hold that the suit is barred by limitation. In Harnam Singh’s case, certain Rules governing correction of date of birth in the service record prescribing limitation period for making request for correction of the date of birth was under consideration. But in the case in hand, applicability of no such rules has been either pleaded or pressed into service. Therefore, no such period of limitation can be prescribed for the suit in hand. But in the case in hand, applicability of no such rules has been either pleaded or pressed into service. Therefore, no such period of limitation can be prescribed for the suit in hand. Therefore, learned lower appellate court went wrong in saying that on the basis of the decision reported in AIR 1993 SC 1367 the suit is time barred. 19. However, in the case of Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department & others Vs. R. Kirubakaran: 1994 Supreme Court Cases ( L & S) 449 referred to in para-21 of the judgment in G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Shib Kumar Dushad: (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 696 their Lordships have made the following observation: “Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. 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 or the tribunal 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. 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 filed within the time, which can be held to be reasonable. 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 the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book.” (underlined for supplying emphasis) 20. In Burn Standard Co. 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 the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book.” (underlined for supplying emphasis) 20. In Burn Standard Co. Ltd. V. Dinabandhu Majumdar: (1995) 4 SCC 172 , the Hon’ble apex Court made the following observations which are quoted in G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (supra): “When a person seeks employment, he impliedly agrees with the terms and conditions on which employment is offered. For every post in the service of the Government or any other instrumentality there is the minimum age of entry prescribed depending on the functional requirements of the post. In order to verify that the person concerned is not below that prescribed age he is required to disclose his date of birth. The date of birth is verified and if found to be correct is entered in the service record. It is ordinarily presumed that the birth date disclosed by the incumbent is accurate. The situation then is that the incumbent gives the date of birth and the employer accepts it as true and accurate before it is entered in the service record. The entry in the service record made on the basis of the employee’s statement cannot be changed unilaterally at the sweet will of the employee except in the manner permitted by service conditions or the supplying rules”. 21. On the basis of the observation in G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (supra) the suit, having not been filed within a reasonable time, is liable to be dismissed on the principles of acquiescence and estoppel. Consequently the impugned judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate court is liable to be confirmed. 22. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on contest but in the facts and circumstances without any cost.