JUDGMENT : The petitioner complains of an order of September 17, 2015 by which the petitioner’s application for correction of the petitioner’s date of birth at the fag end of the petitioner’s service career has been rejected. The petitioner joined the service in the year 1991 by relying on a certificate issued by the headmaster of the school that the petitioner attended for his date of birth. The certificate clearly recorded that the petitioner was promoted from class VIII to class IX in the year 1975 and his date of birth was recorded in the admission register as October 12, 1956. Accordingly, upon the petitioner joining the Calcutta State Transport Corporation Limited, the date of birth of October 12, 1956 was recorded in the petitioner’s service records. On December 23, 2013 the petitioner attempted to make an innocent representation to the employer to the effect that the petitioner’s date of birth was erroneously recorded in his service book. In the representation of December 23, 2013 the petitioner did not explain why the petitioner could not produce the petitioner’s school leaving certificate at the time that the petitioner joined the service or at any reasonable time thereafter. The representation did not refer to the certificate that had been produced by the petitioner from the headmaster of the petitioner’s school. The representation did not allude to any alleged mistake in the certificate that had been furnished by the petitioner regarding the proof of the date of birth of the petitioner. Even more surprisingly, the petitioner’s representation of December 23, 2013 came to be accepted by the employer and a circular was published by the Deputy Managing Director on February 11, 2014 requiring the petitioner’s date of birth to be treated as September 1, 1962 in place and stead of October 12, 1956. However, within a short time, the circular of February 11, 2014 was corrected by a subsequent circular of July 22, 2014 which reinstated the date of October 12, 1956 as the petitioner’s date of birth in his service records. The petitioner challenged the circular of July 22, 2014 by way of WP 11992 (W) of 2015. Such petition was disposed of by an order of June 30, 2015 by setting aside the circular of July 22, 2014 since the same had been issued without reference to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the circular of July 22, 2014 by way of WP 11992 (W) of 2015. Such petition was disposed of by an order of June 30, 2015 by setting aside the circular of July 22, 2014 since the same had been issued without reference to the petitioner. The relevant order directed the employer to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and furnish reasons before taking a stand on the petitioner’s date of birth. Pursuant to such direction, the petitioner was given notice and afforded an opportunity to indicate whatever material the petitioner had in support of the petitioner’s contention that the petitioner’s date of birth should be regarded as September 1, 1962 and not October 12, 1956. The order dated September 17, 2015 is well reasoned and indicates the grounds why the petitioner’s suggestion as to his date of birth at the very end of his working career could not be accepted. Cogent grounds have been given to decline the petitioner’s original representation. Since it is evident that the stand taken by the employer as to the petitioner’s date of birth is well considered after hearing out the petitioner and since there is no explanation from the petitioner as why the petitioner could not file his school leaving certificate at the time of his joining or why the petitioner could not discover for a period of nearly 25 years that the date of birth that the petitioner had submitted through a certificate to the employer may have been erroneous, the employer is perfectly justified in rejecting the petitioner’s representation and correcting the erroneous circular that had been published by the Deputy Managing Director on February 11, 2014. There is no basis to the petitioner’s assertion that his date of birth is otherwise than as submitted by the petitioner at the time of his joining the service. W.P. 1085 (W) of 2016 is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.10,000/-. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.