ORDER : Ajay Rastogi, J. The petitioner was initially engaged as Safai karamchari on daily wage basis on 18.10.1984 and was appointed on regular basis on 1.1.1987 vide order dated 21.1.1987 and after his regular appointment, was called upon to furnish the relevant documentary evidence and particularly for the date of birth which could be recorded in the service roll and that becomes sacrosanct to be carried out for times to come in taking the decision of qualifying service and other benefits which the employee became entitled for the service he has rendered in the organization. 2. Indisputably, it is the own case of the petitioner that when service roll was prepared at the time when he was regularly appointed he furnished his horoscope on the basis of which 2.12.1956 was recorded as his date of birth duly attested and verified by the executive officer and it is not the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the date of birth which was recorded in the service roll of the petitioner or what is mentioned in horoscope is factually incorrect but it appears that at later stage, the officer of the Municipal Board enquired into the matter and called from him some documentary evidence in support of his date of birth. 3. Notice was served to the petitioner dated 11.4.2000 and turn has taken place thereafter. The petitioner obtained transfer certificate from the School at Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu dated 19.4.2000 (Ann.4) indicating his date of birth recorded in school as 8.2.1967. One thing which can be further transpired from Ann.4 that he has joined Class I on 1.7.1975 and left on 30.4.1976 and throughout he remained absent and this court can certainly infer that this is the document obtained by the petitioner only for the purpose to support his date of birth recorded in school as 8.2.1967, even in support of date of birth nothing is on record on the basis of which his date of birth was recorded while took admission in Class I in the school in 1975. 4. 4. Counsel submits that after the school certificate was furnished no action has been taken by the respondent for change in the date of birth with proper amendment in service roll of the petitioner and when he was going to attain the age of 60 years he has been served with the letter dated 21.6.2016 that he is going to retire from 31.12.2016 on attaining age of superannuation. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that R.8 A(2)(a) and (b) of the Rajasthan Service Rules makes a distinction in regard to employees who were appointed prior to 1.1.1999 and thereafter. The petitioner was appointed after 1.1.1999 and indisputably his minimum qualification to the post held is not Secondary School Examination, the authority was under obligation to record his date of birth based on the birth certificate issued by the Municipal, Panchayat or School, but sancrosant correction has not been made based on school transfer certificate, copy of which is on record. The respondents are not justified in taking decision to retire treating him attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of horoscope. 6. The submission made is without substance for the reason that distinction of 1.1.1999 was made by the rule making authority with a view that those who have entered into service prior to 1.1.1999 no change can be given effect to but who were entered after 1.1.1999 if there is any ambiguity in their service roll and that needs to be corrected within the guidelines issued u/R.8A(2)(a)(b)(iii) of the Rules and for change of date of birth, the employee has to support tangible evidence on record. 7. 7. In the instant case, the petitioner himself voluntarily submitted his date of birth at the time of regular appointment which was recorded in his service roll and it is his own case that he offered horoscope to the authority on the basis of which the date of birth 2.12.1956 was recorded and if the date of birth was recorded on his request entered into service roll he cannot now be permitted to question and permission to change the date of birth based on the school certificate of entering into school in Standard I in 1975 where he never studied and in absence of any document to support on which the date of birth in school leaving certificate was entered the date of birth once recorded cannot be permitted to be changed in exercise of power conferred u/R.8(2)(a)(iii)) of the Rajasthan Service Rules and if decision has been taken by the authority on the basis of his date of birth recorded in service roll entered into, I find no error in the decision while issuing notice indicating that the petitioner is going to retire on 31.12.2016 on attaining age of superannuation and no error being committed by the authority in taking the decision which may call for interference. 8. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.