JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 6256 of 2014 against the order dated 23rd July, 2015 vide which the said petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. This writ petition was filed by the original petitioner for change of Date of Birth at the fag end of his career. 2. Having heard learned counsels appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that as per the respondent authorities, viz. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, the Date of Birth of the appellant (original petitioner) as mentioned in the statutory form B Register, which is a register maintained under Rule 48, 51, 77 and 77 A (2) of the Mines Rules, 1955 enacted under the Mines Act, 1952, is 30th June, 1955. This document is annexed as Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in the writ petition preferred by the original petitioner. 3. A perusal of the said document, viz. Form B original Register (a statutory Form), which is also produced today in the court and which is also shown to the counsel appearing for the appellant, reveals the Date of Birth of this appellant as 30th June, 1955, hence, keeping in view the said record he has already been retired on 30th June, 2015. 4. Looking to the aforesaid document, it appears that there is a photograph of this appellant affixed with Form B. Moreover, a signature of this appellant can also be seen on the said form. 5. Counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) questioned the genuineness of the signature of the appellant mainly on the ground that he was illiterate at the relevant time. We are not accepting this argument mainly for the reason that signature of this appellant found in the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal is tallying with the signature of this appellant found in Form B Original. Thus, genuineness of the signature and photograph of appellant in Form B, where his Date of Birth is recorded, cannot be doubted, hence, no error has been committed by the respondents in retiring this appellant taking into consideration the Date of Birth of the appellant recorded in the aforesaid Form B. 6. Thus, genuineness of the signature and photograph of appellant in Form B, where his Date of Birth is recorded, cannot be doubted, hence, no error has been committed by the respondents in retiring this appellant taking into consideration the Date of Birth of the appellant recorded in the aforesaid Form B. 6. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per Annexure 1, which is a service excerpt, the Date of Birth of the appellant is furnished as 22 years in 1980 as assessed by the Medical Examination Board at the time of his appointment and the Date of Birth is changed by the respondent behind the back of this appellant and hence, the appellant ought to have retired on 30th June, 2017. We are not accepting this argument canvassed by the counsel for the appellant mainly for the reason that Annexure 1 to this Letters Patent Appeal, which is the service excerpt, is not a statutory Form at all where as Form B is a Statutory document as mentioned herein above. Moreover, in Form B, where Date of Birth of the appellant is recorded as 30th June, 1955, the photograph and signature of this appellant are revealed as genuine. 7. Further, the writ petition for change of Date of Birth was preferred at the fag end of his career by the original petitioner and for this very reason no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the said writ petition and we see no reason to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the said writ petition. 8. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.