ORDER : In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.03.2007, by which the Committee, formed by the respondents, pursuant to the order of this Hon'ble Court, has found that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.1944. The petitioner has prayed for correcting his date of birth from 01.07.1944 to 01.07.1950. 2. The petitioner had earlier approached, this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No. 1277 of 2004, for correcting his date of birth. The said writ was disposed of vide order dated 26.07.2006. While disposing the said writ application, this Hon'ble Court quashed the order of superannuation giving a liberty to the respondents to hold an enquiry in respect of the correct date of birth of the petitioner by observing the principles of natural justice and rules, if any, in vogue. 3. In compliance of the said order passed by this Court, the respondents, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, conducted an enquiry and the impugned order was passed on 17.03.2007, holding that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.1944. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is absolutely bad, as the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.1950 and not 01.07.1944. He submits that the matriculation certificate of the petitioner clearly suggests that his date of birth is 01.07.1950. The same date was recorded in the Medical Card, which was issued by the Company. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that Annexure-4 also shows that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.1950. 5. Counsel for the respondents submits that after the order was passed by the Hon'ble Court in W.P.(S) No.1277 of 2004 dated 26.07.2006, the petitioner was given an opportunity and his case was considered and ultimately it was found by the Committee that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.1944. Counsel further relies upon Annexure-9 to the writ application, which is the Personnel Department Form, filled up by the petitioner, at the time of entry in service. Relying upon the said document, learned counsel for the respondents submits that initially the date of birth of the petitioner was mentioned as 01.07.1944, but it was penned through. He submits that after taking into consideration all the documents and after giving all opportunities to the petitioner, the Committee came to a finding that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.1944. 6. He submits that after taking into consideration all the documents and after giving all opportunities to the petitioner, the Committee came to a finding that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.1944. 6. After going through the records and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that earlier an opportunity was given to the respondents to inquire into the matter and come to a finding as to what is the actual date of birth of the petitioner. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by a Committee, after giving opportunity to the petitioner, who admittedly appeared before the said Committee. The Committee after taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matters has reached to the conclusion that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.1944. 7. Photostat copy of the matriculation certificate, which is annexed with the writ petition, shows the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.07.1950, but from the Photostat copy itself, it is not clear, as to when this certificate was issued. From the document relied upon by the respondents, I find that originally 01.07.1944 was written, against column no.8, which is the column for date of birth. I also find that the said Entry was struck-off and another Entry as 01.07.1950 was made, which was also struck-off. This document was filled up at the very initial stage of entry in service. I find that there are rival contentions of the parties in respect of date of birth of the petitioner. The respondents are disputing the date of birth, which the petitioner is claiming. Further after proper enquiry the date of birth of the petitioner was assessed as 01.07.1944. 8. I find that there is serious dispute on the question of fact, regarding date of birth, in this case, which cannot be adjudicated in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. To resolve the dispute, evidence has to be adduced by the parties before an appropriate Court. The petitioner, thus, is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum either the Civil Court or may raise dispute in terms of Industrial Disputes Act for redressal of his grievance. No relief can be granted to the petitioner in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same is, thus, dismissed.