JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. – Heard Sri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amit Singh Bhadaoria, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4. 2. The petitioner herein was appointed at Vidyut Vitran Khand, Unnao, in the year 1978 ? As at the time of entry into service and joining on the post of Coolie he had not passed High School Examination, therefore, a medical examination was got conducted and based thereon his date of birth was ascertained as 6.7.1955, which was entered in his service book and the same was duly singed by the petitioner. 3. While in service the petitioner appeared in the High School Examination and qualified the same in the year 1982. He submitted the said High School certificate to the authorities whereupon a letter was written by the S.D.O. to the Executive Engineer, Unnao on 28.11.1983 forwarding the copy of the said High School certificate for necessary action. 4. The contention of the learned counsel is that this was in fact for the purposes of correction in date of birth based on the High School certificate which was mentioned as 15.6.1957. The further contention is that the correct date of birth of the petitioner was 15.6.1957, which was erroneously entered as 6.7.1955 at the time of entry into service. 5. The petitioner is said to have been under the impression that the date of birth would be corrected based on the High School certificate. It is only in the year 2014 when a list of employees who were to retire shortly was notified wherein the name of the petitioner figured at serial no. 11 and his date of birth was mentioned as 6.7.1955, that the petitioner came to know that the same had not been rectified, therefore, he submitted a representation. No heed was paid to the said representation and the petitioner was retired from service of the opposite parties on 31.7.2015. Prior to that he filed this writ petition on 7.1.2015, i.e. barely six months prior to his ensuing retirement based on the date of birth mentioned in the service-book, seeking a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties for correcting his date of birth. 6. Prior to that he filed this writ petition on 7.1.2015, i.e. barely six months prior to his ensuing retirement based on the date of birth mentioned in the service-book, seeking a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties for correcting his date of birth. 6. The counter affidavit reveals that the rules known as 'U.P. Government Recruitment of Service (Determination of date of birth Rules) 1974 (for short 'Rules 1974')' were adopted by the erstwhile U.P. State Electricity Board vide resolution dated 20.6.1975. The said Board was amalgamated and a new Corporation viz. U.P. Power Corporation was made. Rules and regulations of the erstwhile Board were adopted by the Board of newly created Corporation. Rule 2 of the aforesaid Rules 1974 reads as under: "The date of birth of a Government servant as recorded in the certificate of his having passed the High School or equivalent examination at the time of his entry into the Government service, or where a Government servant has not passed any such examination as aforesaid or has passed such examination after joining the service, the date of birth or the age recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into the Government service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes in relation of his service, including eligibility for promotion, superannuation, premature retirement benefits, and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever." 7. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule makes it amply clear that in the event an entrant into service has not passed High School or equivalent examination or has passed such examination after joining the service, the date of birth or the age recorded in his service book at the time of entry into service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age, as the case may be for all purposes in relation of his service including promotion, superannuation, premature retirement etc. and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date of birth or age in any circumstance, whatsoever. 8. Admittedly, the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in service-book at the time of his entry into service was 6.7.1955. 9. and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date of birth or age in any circumstance, whatsoever. 8. Admittedly, the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in service-book at the time of his entry into service was 6.7.1955. 9. In view of the above quoted Rule 2 no such application for correction in date of birth could have been entertained in the case of the petitioner and the same was rightly not entertained by the opposite parties. 10. The contention of the petitioner that after submission of the High School certificate he had applied for correction of date of birth as is evident from the letter dated 28.11.1983 is concerned, same is not tenable firstly for the reason that there is no such application for? correction of date of birth; secondly, even if such an application was submitted, it was not maintainable in view of Rule 2.? The letter does not anywhere refer to the correction in date of birth based on the High School certificate. It only refers that action be taken as a consequence of submission of High School certificate. If an employee acquires a qualification during service, then such a qualification is required to be mentioned in the service book and other service records for the purpose of certain service benefits such as promotion etc. 11. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner barely six months prior to his age of superannuation i.e. just at the fag end of his service. 12. Contention of Sri Dubey is that at the time of entry into service the petitioner had produced the School Transfer Certificate, but instead of recording the date of birth on the said basis the petitioner was made to undergo medical examination and based thereon the date of birth was recorded which was impermissible. 13. This contention cannot be accepted for the reason firstly recording of date of birth on the basis of medical examination is a scientific and rational criteria; secondly, having signed the service book bearing the date of birth as 6.7.1955 the petitioner is estopped from challenging the same, that too, after so many years, specially in view of the Rule 2 quoted herein above. 14. As far as the High School certificate acquired during serviced is concerned, same cannot be used for purposes of change of date of birth as has already been discussed herein above. 14. As far as the High School certificate acquired during serviced is concerned, same cannot be used for purposes of change of date of birth as has already been discussed herein above. 15. For the reasons afore stated, specially Rule 2 of the aforesaid Rules 1974, the writ petition lacks merit and requires no interference.? It is accordingly dismissed.