JUDGMENT : DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. 1. The petitioner, who is an employee of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (MCL), has filed this application assailing the notice dated 29.05.2015 in Annexure-6 issued by opposite party no.2 calling upon him to show cause why his date of birth shall not be changed to 12.02.1955 from 02.08.1962, and consequential order dated 29.06.2015 in Annexure-U passed by opposite party no.2 superannuating the petitioner from service with immediate effect by modifying his date of birth from 02.08.1962 to 12.02.1955 on the basis of the High School Certificate produced by him at the time of his promotion to the higher post. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that, following due procedure of law, the household land of the petitioner along with the house standing thereon was acquired by opposite party no.1. A scheme was prepared by opposite party no.1 to give employment to the land oustees under the company. At the time of initial recruitment, when the petitioner joined as “Badli Loader” on 07.09.1989, he could not produce any certificate in support of his age and on the basis of the self declaration his age was recorded as 27 years and date of birth was entered as 02.08.1962. 3. As per the Cadre Scheme for Ministerial Staff General Clerical Cadre, circulated vide 1.1 No. 34, dated 17.07.1984, (hereinafter referred to as “the Scheme”), the minimum educational qualification for promotion to the Clerk Grade-III, Clerical Grade-II, Clerk Grade-I, Special Grade Clerk/Sr. Clerk and Office Superintendent is matriculation and equivalent examination from any recognized Board of Examination. The Scheme further provides that for the promotion to Clerk Grade-III, the eligibility criteria is three years service in company and the mode of promotion is by way of selection/test. The eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Clerical Grade-II are three years experience as Clerk Grade-III, and the mode of promotion is by way of DPC. Similarly, for the post Clerk Grade-I, the eligibility criteria for promotion is three years experience as Clerk Grade-II; for the post of Special Grade Clerk/Sr. Clerk, the eligibility criteria for promotion are five years experience as Clerk Grade-1, or eight years experience as Clerk Grade-I and II out of which three years must be as Grade-I; and for the post of Office Superintendent, the eligibility criteria for promotion are five years experience as Special Grade Clerk/Sr. Clerk. 4. Clerk, the eligibility criteria for promotion are five years experience as Clerk Grade-1, or eight years experience as Clerk Grade-I and II out of which three years must be as Grade-I; and for the post of Office Superintendent, the eligibility criteria for promotion are five years experience as Special Grade Clerk/Sr. Clerk. 4. When question of promotion to the post of Clerk Grade-III was under consideration, the petitioner produced the High School Certificate fulfilling the eligibility criteria of matriculation and was promoted to the post of Clerical Grade-II w.e.f. 02.12.1991 by order dated 08.01.1993 passed by the Personnel Manager of opposite party no.1. The said High School Certificate indicates that the date of birth is 12.02.1957 (but it is stated to be 12.02.1954). Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Clerk Grade- II on 04.11.1996 on the basis of the production of High School Certificate, where the date of birth has been indicated as 12.02.1955, then promoted to Clerk Grade-I on 18.05.2000, Special Grade Clerk on 11.07.2006 and Office Superintendent, T & S Grade “A” on 11.01.2012. But due to self declaration made in the Form-B, the date of birth has been entered as 02.08.1962. 5. Since two High School Certificates were produced before the authority, while considering promotion to Clerk Grade-III and Office Superintendent, verification was sought for from the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, which on verification of the records submitted that the date of birth entered in the certificate as “12.02.1955” was genuine. On that basis, steps were taken for superannuation of the petitioner from service by end of February, 2015. But, the petitioner, challenging such action of the Management, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 3065 of 2014 along with Misc. Case No. 2964 of 2014 in which this Court passed an interim order on 18.02.2014 that no order with regard to superannuation of the petitioner would be passed without leave of the Court. But, the petitioner, challenging such action of the Management, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 3065 of 2014 along with Misc. Case No. 2964 of 2014 in which this Court passed an interim order on 18.02.2014 that no order with regard to superannuation of the petitioner would be passed without leave of the Court. Since the Management had changed the date of birth without affording opportunity of hearing, this Court disposed of the said writ petition by judgment dated 22.04.2014 with the direction that if the Management was going to take any action against the petitioner on the basis of different date of birth, then before changing the date of birth in Form-B, the Management would comply with the principles of natural justice in consonance with the law laid down by the apex Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 giving opportunity to the petitioner to establish his case by getting appropriate declaration of correct date of birth in consonance with the law. 6. The order having been communicated to the opposite parties, a show cause notice was issued on 29.05.2015 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why his date of birth would not be changed on the basis of the High School Certificate from 02.08.1962 (as per service record) to 12.02.1955. It was further mentioned in the show cause notice that the petitioner had availed the benefit of career growth/promotions under Cadre Scheme in Clerical grade on the basis of High School Certificate produced by him. Even though much opportunity was given for filing of written explanation and personal hearing, the petitioner did not choose to file any written explanation nor did he appear in person before the Committee. Consequentially, the order dated 29.06.2015 was passed by modifying the date of birth mentioned in the Form-B from 02.08.1962 to 12.02.1955 on the basis of High School Certificate produced by him, and genuineness of which has been confirmed by the Board of Secondary Education, hence this application. 7. Mr. H.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence that such change of date of birth is unilateral, unreasonable and contrary to the settled position of law. 7. Mr. H.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner argued with vehemence that such change of date of birth is unilateral, unreasonable and contrary to the settled position of law. As such, questionnaires formed in paragraph-2 of the writ petition from sub-para (a) to (e), having not been answered, the consequential action taken for superannuation of the petitioner cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is further contended that the entry made in Form-B on the basis of self declaration of the petitioner, being under the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952, could not have been changed. It is stated that the opposite parties are taking different stands at different times. To be more specific, in OJC No. 9901 of 1999 (Brahmadeb Singh v. MCL) a stand was taken in the counter affidavit that entry of date of birth in Form-B Register and Service Register are authentic. Form–B Register is maintained as per the Mines Act, 1952 and Rules made there under which are authentic and conclusive. Therefore, once entry of date of birth has been made in Form-B treating to be authentic and conclusive, the same could not have been changed subsequently by virtue of the entry made in the High School Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Cuttack. It is further contended that if the petitioner had matriculation qualification at the time of entry into service, he could not have engaged as “Badli Loader”, rather could have given better post and would have enjoyed the promotional benefits befitting his qualification much earlier. No reason has been assigned that why the date of birth entered into Form-B shall be changed and the petitioner is directed to superannuate from service on attaining the age of 60 years of age taking into date of birth as 12.02.1955 recorded in the High School Certificate produced which was considered as genuine one as per the report of the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha. If the entry made in Form-B is authentic and final, the same could not have been allowed to change. The steps taken by the authority concerned changing such date of birth entered in the Form-B and directing the petitioner to superannuate from service cannot sustain in the eye of law. If the entry made in Form-B is authentic and final, the same could not have been allowed to change. The steps taken by the authority concerned changing such date of birth entered in the Form-B and directing the petitioner to superannuate from service cannot sustain in the eye of law. More so, nothing has been placed on record that who is responsible for such entry or who is the authority concerned made such entry and at what point of time. In OJC No. 9901 of 1999 a specific stand was taken by the opposite parties that Form-B is a statutory form under the Mines Act and the same should not be changed by the authority, consequentially, any action taken contrary to the said entry is liable to be set aside. 8. Mr. J. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. D. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite parties states that on the basis of the self declaration made by the petitioner at the time of entry into service his date of birth entered into Form-B as 02.08.1962. By that, the petitioner was 27 years of age as on 02.08.1989. But when the question of promotion came up for consideration, as per the Scheme dated 17.07.1984, since the minimum qualification prescribed was matriculation, the petitioner was called upon to produce the certificate so as to entitle him to get promotion. On that basis, the petitioner produced High School Certificate issued by the Board of Secretary Education, Odisha wherein his date of birth was found to be entered as 12.02.1957 (but it was stated to be 12.02.1954). More particularly, the said certificate was produced by the petitioner with the endorsement “submitted by me”. Consequentially, the petitioner got promotion to Clerical Grade-III post. When the question for promotion next promotion came up, i.e., Clerk Grade-II, again he produced a High School Certificate, wherein his date of birth was found to be entered as 12.02.1955 and there is an endorsement “Deposited by D.K. Mishra” (petitioner herein). Basing upon such certificate, the petitioner was promoted to the next higher post, i.e., Clerk Grade-II, and subsequently promoted to Grade-1 and Special Grade Clerk and finally to the post Office Superintendent. Basing upon such certificate, the petitioner was promoted to the next higher post, i.e., Clerk Grade-II, and subsequently promoted to Grade-1 and Special Grade Clerk and finally to the post Office Superintendent. To ascertain the genuineness, the two certificates produced by the petitioner were sent for examination, and the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha by letter dated 06.03.2014 replied that the High School Certificate, wherein the date of birth was indicated as 12.02.1955, was genuine. Therefore, on the basis of such genuine certificate, which was duly endorsed by Board of Secondary Education, Odisha in letter dated 06.03.2014, steps for superannuation of the petitioner from service were taken on attaining the age of 60 years in the month of February, 2015. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 3065 of 2014, which was disposed of by judgment and order dated 22.04.2014 directing the opposite parties to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Pursuant to which, notice to show cause was issued on 29.05.2015, but the petitioner did not file any show cause. Again on 06.06.2015, a letter was issued requesting the petitioner to appear before the committee for personal hearing on 11.06.2015 at 11.00 a.m. But, neither the petitioner filed any written explanation, nor appeared in person before such committee. Consequentially, final order was passed on 29.06.2016 modifying the date of birth from 02.08.1962 (entry made in the Form-B) to 12.02.1955 (on the basis of High School Certificate recommended as genuine by Board of Secondary Education, Odisha) and the petitioner was superannuated from service with immediate effect. Thereby, in passing such order, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority concerned warranting interference of this Court at this stage. To substantiate his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the apex Court in Bharat Cooking Coal Limited and others v. Chhota Birsa Uranw, (2014) 12 SCC 570 . 9. This Court heard Mr. H.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. D. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite parties for opposite parties, and perused the records. Pleadings between the parties having been exchanged, the writ petition is disposed of finally at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 10. J. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. D. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite parties for opposite parties, and perused the records. Pleadings between the parties having been exchanged, the writ petition is disposed of finally at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 10. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner being a land oustee under the Scheme of the opposite parties got an employment under the opposite parties. At the time of entry into service, on the basis of self declaration, his date of birth was entered as 02.08.1962. But subsequently, when his case was considered for promotion, the minimum qualification for promotional post being matriculation, the petitioner produced two High School Certificates where, the date of birth was mentioned as 12.02.1957 (but it was stated to be 12.02.1954) and 12.02.1955. Both the certificates were sent by the Management to the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha to find out the genuineness of the said certificates. But the Board authority, on verification of the records, recommended that the date of birth entered in the High School Certificate as “12.02.1955” is genuine one. While the Management was going to superannuate the petitioner from service at the age of 60 years treating his date of birth as 12.02.1955, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 3065 of 2014. By judgment and order dated 24.04.2015, while disposing of the said writ petition, this Court directed that if the Management would take any action against the petitioner on the basis of different date of birth, then before changing the date of birth in Form-B, the Management would comply with the principles of natural justice in consonance with the law laid down by the apex Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 giving opportunity to the petitioner to establish his case by getting appropriate declaration of correct date of birth in accordance with the law. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 giving opportunity to the petitioner to establish his case by getting appropriate declaration of correct date of birth in accordance with the law. In compliance of the same, a show cause notice was issued by the Management on 29.05.2015 directing the petitioner to file written explanation within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice, and produce his High School Certificate in original indicating his date of birth as 12.02.1955 along with other relevant documents, if any, explaining therein as to why his date of birth would not be taken on the basis of High School Certificate, from 02.08.1962 (as per the service record) to 12.02.1955. In case no explanation as well as relevant document was received within stipulated time, it would be presumed that he had no explaination to submit and further appropriate action as deemed fit would be taken by MCL Management. If the petitioner required personal hearing, the same might be informed in his reply. But, the petitioner, instead of filing reply, filed representation on 05.06.2015, which was considered on 06.06.2015. He was again permitted to file explanation and appear in person before the Committee on 11.06.2015 at 11 a.m. He was also provided with all documents and requested to give reply. Though such documents were supplied to the petitioner, he did not submit any explanation nor did he appear before the authority on the date fixed, i.e., on 11.06.2015. Consequentially, the impugned order dated 29.06.2015 was passed modifying his date of birth from 02.08.1962 (entered in the service record) to 12.02.1955 (on the basis of the High School Certificate produced by him and recommended by Board of Secondary Education, Odisha as genuine one). 11. Prima facie, change of date of birth of the petitioner from 02.08.1962 to 12.02.1955 is the subject matter of dispute in the present application. 12. The petitioner being a land oustee, while entering into service, on the basis of his self declaration, his date of birth was entered as 02.08.1962 in the service register, as prescribed under Section 48 of the Mines Act, 1952, and in Form-B, as prescribed in Rule-77 of the Mines Rules, 1955. Section 48 of the Mines Act, 1952 reads thus: “48. Section 48 of the Mines Act, 1952 reads thus: “48. Registers of persons employed :- (1) For every mines there shall be kept in the prescribed form and place a register of all persons employed in the mine showing in respect of each such person – (a) the name of the employee with the name of his father or, of her husband, as the case may be, and such other particulars as may be necessary for purpose of identification; (b) the age and sex of the employee; (c) the nature of employment (whether above ground or below ground, and if above ground, whether in open cast workings or otherwise) and the date of commencement thereof’ (d) xxxxx (e) such other particulars as may be prescribed; and the relevant entries shall be authenticated by the signature or the thumb and the relevant entries shall be authenticated by the signature or the thumb impression of the person concerned.” Rule-77 of the Mines Rules, 1955 reads thus: “Register of employees :- The register required by sub-section (1) of section 48 shall be maintained in Form-B, keeping separate page for each person employed in the mine.” 13. In terms of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 48 read with Rule 77, as quoted above, a register in Form-B was opened for the petitioner, when he entered into service. As would be evident from the extract of Form-B, which has been filed as Annexure-1, the petitioner was engaged in Hirakhand Bundia Mines of MCL and, on the basis of self declaration made by the petitioner, his date of birth was entered as 02.08.1962 by the Management, but nothing has been mentioned about his educational qualification. As per the cadre scheme dated 17.07.1984, when the question of promotion came, the petitioner had to satisfy the authority that he had acquired the matriculation qualification to be eligible for promotion to the post of Clerk Grade-III. Consequentially, he produced the High School Certificate, wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 12.02.1957 (but it is stated as 12.02.1954). Having satisfied with the qualification of matriculation acquired by the petitioner, he was given promotion to the post of Clerk Grade-III. When promotion to the post of Clerical Grade-II came up for consideration, again he produced another High School Certificate wherein his date of birth was indicated as 12.02.1955. Having satisfied with the qualification of matriculation acquired by the petitioner, he was given promotion to the post of Clerk Grade-III. When promotion to the post of Clerical Grade-II came up for consideration, again he produced another High School Certificate wherein his date of birth was indicated as 12.02.1955. As he satisfied the requirement of eligibility criteria of matriculation, even though he was promoted, the genuineness of two High School Certificates produced by him were doubted by the authority. As a result, both the certificates were sent to the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, which recommended that the High School Certificate in which date of birth was indicated as “12.02.1955” was correct and genuine. Thereafter, when steps were taken for change of date of birth, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 3065 of 2014, which was disposed of by judgment and order dated 24.04.2015 with the direction that if the Management would take any action against the petitioner on the basis of different date of birth, then before changing the date of birth in Form-B, the Management would comply with the principles of natural justice. 14. As a consequence, on 29.05.2015 the petitioner was called upon to show cause within a period of 10 days as to why his date of birth would not be taken on the basis of High School Certificate, from 02.08.1962 (as per the service record) to 12.02.1955. The petitioner, instead of showing any cause, filed representation on 05.06.2015, which was considered on 06.06.2015 and allowed permitting the petitioner to file explanation and appear in person before the Committee on 11.06.2015 at 11 a.m. He was also provided with all documents and requested to give reply. Though such documents were supplied to the petitioner, he did not submit any explanation nor did he appear before the authority on the date fixed, i.e., on 11.06.2015. Consequentially, the impugned order dated 29.06.2015 was passed, whereby the date of birth of the petitioner was modified from 02.08.1962 to 12.02.1955 and he was superannuated from service with immediate effect. 15. In Bharat Cooking Ltd. (supra), the apex Court held that unless a clear case, on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. 15. In Bharat Cooking Ltd. (supra), the apex Court held that unless a clear case, on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Therefore, the date of birth of the employee is to be determined as per the prescribed applicable rules or framework existing in the organization. It is held that on the basis of the entry made in the School Leaving Certificate, the date of birth can be changed in view of the implementation Instruction No. 76 contained in the National Coal Wage Agreement III. 16. In State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Keka, AIR 1971 SC 173 , the apex Court held a public servant may dispute the date of birth as entered in the service record and apply for its correction but till the record is corrected he cannot claim to continue in service on the basis of the date of birth claimed by him. 17. The relevant date of birth in the context of superannuation and the basic principles relating to correction of rectification of the same was lucidly stated and summarised by the apex Court in Union of India v. Harnam Singh, AIR 1993 SC 1367 . The apex court said: “A Government servant, after entry into service, acquires the right to continue in service till the age of retirement, as fixed by the State in exercise of its powers regulating conditions of service, unless the services are dispersed with on other grounds contained in the relevant service rules after following the procedure prescribed therein. The date of birth entered in the service records of a civil servant is, thus of utmost importance for the reason that right to continue in service stands decided by its entry in the service record. A Government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of the employment is, of course, not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age. A Government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of the employment is, of course, not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age. It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in possession of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant must do so without any unreasonable delay. In the absence of any provision in the rules for correction of date of birth, the general principle of refusing relief on grounds of latches or stale claims, is generally applied to by the courts and tribunals. It is nonetheless competent for the Government to fix a time limit, in the service rules, after which no application for correction of date of birth of a Government servant can be entertained. A Government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. A detailed discussion on correction of date of birth has also been done in State of Gujarat v. Vali Mohd. Dosabhai Sindhi, AIR 2006 SC 2735 . 18. In State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Sharma (2002) 7 SCC 719 the apex court held that the date of birth recorded in matriculation certificate carries more probative value than that contained in a retired headmaster’s certificate or in a horoscope. 19. The above being the factual and legal position, this Court is of the considered view that since the action has been taken on the basis of the entry made in the High School Certificate issued by the competent authority, the same carries more probative value than that contained in Form-B which was prepared on the basis of the self declaration made by the petitioner. However, if the petitioner still disputes the document, basing upon which the order impugned has been passed, he is at liberty to approach the common law forum for getting a declaration in accordance with law with regard to his actual date of birth. 20. However, if the petitioner still disputes the document, basing upon which the order impugned has been passed, he is at liberty to approach the common law forum for getting a declaration in accordance with law with regard to his actual date of birth. 20. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.