JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. This L. P appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner against order made in SWP No.723/2004 dated 18.04.2016 dismissing the writ petition, wherein he has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow him to remain in service till 31.05.2006 on the basis of date of birth recorded in his Matriculation Certificate, ie, 16-05-1948 and to allow him to draw all consequential benefits with further prayer that respondents be directed not to make any recoveries from the appellant with effect from May 1998, the date on which the appellant has been treated to have been retired from service. 2. The case of the appellant before the writ court was that he appeared In matriculation examination from University of Jammu and Kashmir in the year 1959 with Roll No. 8503. He was appointed as Junior Assistant in Jammu and Kashmir Revenue Department in the year 1973. The appellant later on appeared in Combined Services Competitive Examination and after qualifying the same, he was appointed as Accounts Officer in Jammu and Kashmir Finance Department on 23.01.1993 on substantive basis. It is stated that when the appellant joined as Junior Assistant in the Revenue Department, he submitted his Matriculation Certificate mentioning date of birth as 16.05.1948 based on which entry was made in the service book stating his date of birth as 16.05.1948 According to the appellant, the Deputy Director (Central) Accounts and Treasuries Department on 28.07.2003 requested the appellant to furnish the service book in original along with matriculation certificate as he had received some complaint against the appellant regarding his date of birth. Again on 17.09.2003 respondent No. 3 directed the appellant to submit his original service book and matriculation certificate and based on said directions, the appellant submitted photocopy of service book and matriculation certificate and on 24.09.2004 respondent No. 3 addressed communication to the District Treasuries Officer Udhampur directing that salary of appellant for the months of July and August 2003 be released and the salary from September 2003 onwards should not be released unless the original service book and matriculation certificate are produced. 3. The Government issued order bearing No 94-F of 2004 dated 06.04.2004 and ordered that appellant has been deemed to have retired from services with effect from May 1998. 3. The Government issued order bearing No 94-F of 2004 dated 06.04.2004 and ordered that appellant has been deemed to have retired from services with effect from May 1998. It is the contention of the appellant--that the said order was not communicated, however, another person assumed the charge of Chief Accounts Officer, District Fund Office Udhampur on 06.04.2004. 4. As per the writ record, the Government order dated 06.04.2004 was not at all challenged. The recovery notice issued on 23.01.2006 was challenged in CMP No. 320/2016, however, the appellant sought permission to withdraw the said application through CMP No. 401/2006 and such permission was granted by the Writ Court by order dated 27.02.2006 granting liberty to the appellant to challenge the said recovery notice dated 23.01.2006 in separate proceedings. 5. The grounds raised by the appellant before the writ Court seeking continuance of service upto May 2006 was that without conducting any enquiry to find out the actual date of birth of the appellant, i.e., whether it is 16.05.1940 or 16.05.1948, the respondents have unilaterally decided to treat the appellant’s date of birth as 16.05.1940 and retired him as if he has already crossed the age of 58 years by Government order dated 94-F of 2004 dated 06-04-2004 with effect from 31.05.1998. The second contention of the appellant was that without giving opportunity to the appellant his date of birth was determined and unilateral decision was taken which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. The respondents opposed the writ petition by filing objections stating that complaint was received from a migrant employee on 15.04.2002 stating that appellant had tampered with his date of birth in the service book. Based on the complaint received, the appellant was asked to produce the service book In original along with matriculation certificate. As the appellant had not produced the original service book as well as the matriculation certificate, he was directed through letter dated 28.07.2003 to furnish the said documents and thereafter he produced the photocopy 2 his service book and matriculation certificate. The copy of the service book as well as matriculation certificate showed his date of birth as 16.05.1948 which was attested by Additional Deputy Director Funds Organization Jammu. The Registrar University of Kashmir was requested to authenticate the photocopy of matriculation certificate by letter dated 17.09.2003. The copy of the service book as well as matriculation certificate showed his date of birth as 16.05.1948 which was attested by Additional Deputy Director Funds Organization Jammu. The Registrar University of Kashmir was requested to authenticate the photocopy of matriculation certificate by letter dated 17.09.2003. The Assistant Secretary (Verification) J&KBOSE vide his letter dated 14.10.2003 requested to remit a sum of Rs.400/- in the shape of Bank Draft as verification fee. The Secretary of the Board also desired furnishing of matriculation certificate in original for the purpose of verification. After repeated reminders, the appellant produced his service book and matriculation certificate in original. The matriculation certificate shows his Roll No. 8503 Session 1959. A demand draft for Rs. 400/- as verification fee along with matriculation certificate in original were sent to Secretary J&KBOSE on 22.01.2004 and after verification the Joint Secretary (Verification) on 26.03.2004 informed that appellant has fraudulently mutilated the date of birth in the said certificate (Matriculation certificate) and inserted a fake date of birth as 16.05.1948 whereas as per record maintained in his office the actual date of birth of the appellant is mentioned as 16.05.1940 under Roll No. 8503 Session 1959 and declared the certificate in question absolutely fake and fraud. The said communication was received by respondents on 05.04.2004. The Joint Secretary (Verification) BOSE also requested for administrative action under Rules against the appellant. Based on the said report of BOSE, Government order No. 94-F of 2004 dated 16.04.2004 was issued holding that appellant was to be deemed to have retired from Government services with effect from 3105.1998 on the basis of his actual date of birth, i.e., 16.05.1940. Thus, it is the case of the respondents that the appellant has produced fake certificate showing his date of birth as 16.05.1948 though his actual date of birth is 16 05.1940. It is also stated in the reply that a criminal case was also instituted and investigation by the Crime Branch of the State was in progress. It is also the contention of the respondents that if the date of birth, as claimed by the appellant, is 16.05.1948 is considered as his correct date of birth then he has passed his matriculation examination when he was only 11 years old which is impermissible as no. person below age of 15/16 years can sit in matriculation examination as per Rules. 7. person below age of 15/16 years can sit in matriculation examination as per Rules. 7. During the hearing of this appeal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that for the allegation of tampering with the date of birth entry in the matriculation certificate an First Information Report (FIR) No. 13/2004 came to be registered with Police Station Crime Branch Jammu and after investigation though challan was filed, after trial by the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge Jammu, the appellant was acquitted by judgment dated 27.07.2007 It is also contended that judgment of acquittal was questioned in Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.74/2007 before this Court and this Court affirmed the acquittal order by judgment dated 05.05.2009. Based on the said acquittal order recorded by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Jammu, the case was argued, however, the writ Court did not gave much credence to the said submission and upheld the retirement of the appellant with effect form 31.05.1998 and against said order this appeal is preferred. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant very much relied on the judgment of the Criminal Court to upset the order of the writ Court stating that the Criminal Court having rendered a finding that appellant has not tampered with date of birth from 16.05.1940 to 16.05.1948 which was affirmed by this Court, writ Court was not justified in treating th’B appellant’s date of birth as 16.05.1940 instead of 16.05.1948. Learned Senior counsel also argued that before passing the retirement order the appellant was not heard and no enquiry was conducted and, therefore, action of the first respondent in retiring the appellant with effect from 31.05.1998 based on his date of birth entry as 16.05.1940 both in the matriculation certificate as well as service record is illegal. 8. We have considered the said submissions, perused the report of BOSE as well as criminal Court judgment dated 27.07.2007 confirmed in Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 74/2007 dated 05.05.2009. 9. The Criminal Court judgment was rendered on the ground that the matriculation certificate is required to be analyzed by an expert at least to come to the conclusion that word(s)/letter(s) in the certificate were erased or mutilated and thereafter word(s)/letter(s) appearing in the date of birth certificate came in to the picture. 9. The Criminal Court judgment was rendered on the ground that the matriculation certificate is required to be analyzed by an expert at least to come to the conclusion that word(s)/letter(s) in the certificate were erased or mutilated and thereafter word(s)/letter(s) appearing in the date of birth certificate came in to the picture. As the tampering has not been proved against the appellant, the commission of offence in which he has been charged has not been proved and he was acquitted. In Criminal appeal, the acquittal was not interfered with on the ground that guilt was not proved beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, appellate Court did not interfere with the order of acquittal by judgment dated 05.05.2009. The Appellate Court recorded that the prosecution has failed to prove that mutilation has been effected in the matriculation certificate and the clerk who was in the verification Section and who has given the report that the certificate is mutilated and is fraud document, has not been examined by the Investigating Officer and was not produced before the Trial Court during the trial of the case. Thus, the Appellate Court found fault with the prosecution. 10. It is settled proposition of law that for convicting a person in criminal trial the prosecution has to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt as strict rule of evidence is applicable. However for deciding correct date of birth of the appellant, i.e., 16.05.1940 or 16.05.1948 other circumstances can be taken note of. 11. In the Affidavit filed by the appellant, it is stated that he had passed matriculation examination in the year 1959 and he studied his matriculation in National High School Srinagar. His Roll No. is admittedly 8503. When such fact is not disputed even as per matriculation certificate produced by the appellant, it is beyond doubt that appellant’s date of birth must be 16.05.1940 as at the age of 11 years no one can appear in matriculation examination as the minimum age required for appearing in matriculation examination is 15/16 years. The learned senior counsel for the appellant was not in a position to refer to any Rule or provision permitting a candidate of 11 years to appear for matriculation examination in the year 1959. 12. The learned senior counsel for the appellant was not in a position to refer to any Rule or provision permitting a candidate of 11 years to appear for matriculation examination in the year 1959. 12. The argument of learned senior counsel for the appellant that the date of birth of appellant is 16.05.1948, is accepted as correct, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant should have been admitted in the first standard at the age of one year which is impermissible. Thus there is no possibility of treating the appellant’s date of birth as 16.05.1948 as contended by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant. The year of passing, the registration number, the School in which the appellant passed matriculation examination having not been disputed and such fact having been verified by getting the report from the BOSE, which is not disputed, there is an irrefutable presumption in law that appellant’s date of birth is 16.05.1940 and not 16.05.1948 as claimed by him. 13. The contention of learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, that without conducting enquiry the respondents have unilaterally come to the conclusion that appellant’s date of birth is 16.05.1940, can be appreciated only if there is possibility of coming to a different conclusion if an enquiry is conducted. It is a well settled proposition of law that if only one view or conclusion is possible while deciding the dispute and even if opportunity of hearing is extended, the result cannot be changed, conducting enquiry is an empty formality 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2004) 4 SCC 281 (Escorts Farms Ltd. v. Commissioner) held that even if notice is given and reply is received and after perusing the reply there is no possibility of changing the view, issuance of notice or extending hearing would be a mere ritual. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2005) 7 SCC 725 (R.C. Tobacco (P) Ltd. v. Union of India), held that issuance of notice would be an empty formality by applying the useless formality theory. In the decision reported in (2010) 13 SCC 216 (Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors) Hon’ble the Supreme Court in paragraph 27 has held thus:— “27. There may be cases where on admitted and undisputed facts, only one conclusion is possible. In the decision reported in (2010) 13 SCC 216 (Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors) Hon’ble the Supreme Court in paragraph 27 has held thus:— “27. There may be cases where on admitted and undisputed facts, only one conclusion is possible. In such an eventuality, the application of the principles or natural justice would be a futile exercise and an empty formality. (Vide: State of UP v. Om Prakash Gupta, 31 AIR 1970 SC 679 ; S.L. Kapoor v, Jagmohan & Ors., 32 AIR 1981 SC 136 ; and U.P Junior Doctors’ Action Committee v . Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani & Ors., 33 AIR 1991 SC 909 )” In the decision reported in AIR 2014 SC 1963 (Securities and Exchange Board of India v. MIS Akshya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.), Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that a person complaining breach of principles of natural justice should prove the prejudice faced by him and mere technical infringement may be ignored by the Courts. The same position is reiterated in the decision reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 (Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and ors) by following the above decisions in paragraph Nos. 46 to 48. 15. Thus the contention of learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant raised on this ground is also unsustainable. 16. In the light of the above findings, we are unable to find any reason to interfere with the order of the writ Court. 17. The L.P. Appeal is dismissed in limine. LPA dismissed.