Judgment : LNR, J. This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.21218 of 2013. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, through order, dated 28.02.2014. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. The petitioner joined the service of the respondents-company on 26.02.1978 as Badli Coal Filler and was promoted as Coal Filler on 01.07.1979. He has also earned further promotions, the latest being the one of A-Grade Senior Mining Sirdar in the year 2006. The Age of retirement in the 1st respondent-company for the employees of that category is 60 years. The age of the petitioner was mentioned as 24 years, when he joined service, thereby the year of birth would be 1954. At a later point of time, the petitioner submitted certain certificates, which reflected date of birth as 13.08.1957. It is also stated that the petitioner appeared in the examinations conducted under the provisions of the Mines Act and in all of them, the date of birth was mentioned as 13.08.1957. The respondents proposed to retire the petitioner with effect from 28.02.2014, on attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of the date of birth/age mentioned in the service records. Accordingly a notice was issued on 01.02.2013. The petitioner challenged the said notice. The petitioner contended that once the date of birth is mentioned in the certificates issued by the educational institutions and entered in some of the records, it is not open to the respondents to ignore that date and to retire him on the basis of the age, which is said to have been mentioned, when he joined service. Reliance is placed upon certain decided cases. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. It was stated that the petitioner did not submit any certificates in proof of his age and as provided for under the relevant Service Regulations, his age was estimated by the Medical Officer and the same was mentioned in the service records. It was further stated that the particulars mentioned in the Mining Certificate do not have any bearing upon the service conditions and that none of the educational certificates produced by the petitioner has any authenticity. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition through order, dated 28.02.2014. It was further stated that the particulars mentioned in the Mining Certificate do not have any bearing upon the service conditions and that none of the educational certificates produced by the petitioner has any authenticity. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition through order, dated 28.02.2014. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner underwent studies by the time he joined the service of the 1st respondent-company and instead of entering the date of birth as reflected in the certificates, the age, said to be on the basis of rough estimation was entered. He contends that whatever may have been the circumstances under which the age was entered, once adequate proof about the date of birth has been placed before them, the respondents ought to have taken the same into account. He submits that the mining certificate issued under the Mines Act has its own significance and the respondents cannot ignore it. He contends that the learned Single Judge ought to have granted relief to the petitioner. Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that it is only when a candidate expresses his inability to submit any proof of date of birth, that his age would be entered on the basis of the estimation by the Medical Officer and the same course of action was adopted in the case of the petitioner. He further submits that the so-called certificates said to have been issued by the educational institutions do not have any authenticity and the learned Judge has taken correct view of the matter. The date of birth of an employee, as entered in the service records, while he joined the service, has its own significance. For all practical purposes, it is required to remain the same. It is only when unrebuttable proof is placed contrary to it, that there exists a possibility for altering it. that too in accordance with the prescribed procedure. In the instant case, the post against which the petitioner was employed at the inception is an unskilled one. No educational qualifications are prescribed for it. The selection is mostly on the basis of the physical fitness. that too in accordance with the prescribed procedure. In the instant case, the post against which the petitioner was employed at the inception is an unskilled one. No educational qualifications are prescribed for it. The selection is mostly on the basis of the physical fitness. The relevant Rules stipulate that in case a candidate is unable to produce any proof about his date of birth, the age shall be ascertained from a Medical Officer and the same shall be entered in the service records. The petitioner was selected and appointed on 26.02.1978 and his age was mentioned as 24 years. In case, the petitioner was of the view that the age mentioned in the service records is not correct, he ought to have taken steps within a short time. The petitioner came forward with certain certificates said to have been issued by the Board of Secondary Education. It is interesting to note that the original did not see the light of the day. The petitioner obtained a certificate on 09.02.2013 from the Police Station, Mandamarri to the effect that he lost the original educational certificate and on that basis, he obtained another certificate. The certificate so filed does not indicate the date of issue and even this is shown as original. The petitioner is shown as ‘failed’ in that examination. The certificate does not accord with the prescribed form. Similarly, he obtained a study certificate dated 16.07.2011 from Primary School, Bejjanki. However, there is no reference to date of birth in that certificate. The respondents have framed ‘Age Retirement Rules’. Rule 3(iii) reads: “When a person entering service is unable to give his date of birth, but gives his age he should be assumed to have completed the stated age on the date of attestation or the date of medical examination as the case may be. For example, if a person is medically examined on 21st February, 1959, and if on that date his age was stated to be ‘19’, his date of birth should be taken as 21st February, 1946” The respondents have taken steps in accordance with the said provision. Much reliance is placed upon the date of birth mentioned in the mining certificate and the entries made therein. The purpose, for which the certificate is issued, is very limited in nature. It only enables the holder of the certificate to undertake detonation etc. Much reliance is placed upon the date of birth mentioned in the mining certificate and the entries made therein. The purpose, for which the certificate is issued, is very limited in nature. It only enables the holder of the certificate to undertake detonation etc. It has no bearing upon the general service particulars. At any rate, the petitioner, who was so conscious about the date of birth through out, ought to have taken steps to get them corrected in the service records, within short time. Almost for three decades, he did not take any steps in that connection. When strenuous arguments were advanced to impress this Court that the entries in the service record are in favour of the petitioner, we summoned them. In the service record, it is clearly mentioned that the age as on the date of joining the service is 24 years and no mention was made about the date of birth. The column relating to ‘educational qualifications’ was left unfilled. It is only at a later point of time, that some interpolations were made. Similarly in B-register, in the relevant column, the age was mentioned as 24 years as on 26.02.1978. In the next column, which has nothing to do with the date of birth or age, the date of birth was mentioned at a later point of time with a different ink. Under these circumstances, we find it difficult to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.