JUDGEMENT : A.K. GOSWAMI, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Bhagabati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Coudhury, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondents. 2. By preferring this writ appeal, the appellant has called into question the judgment and order dated 20.07.2018, passed in WP(C) 1802/2018, dismissing the writ petition. 3. By filing the writ petition, the appellant had prayed for quashing the order dated 24.08.2017, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon, whereby the application dated 28.02.2017, submitted by the appellant praying for change of his date of birth, which was recorded in his Service Book as 30.06.1958, to 31.03.1961 as per his High School Leaving Certificate (HSLC) and Admit Card, was rejected. The appellant had also prayed for a direction to the authorities to take into consideration the date of his birth, as reflected in the High School Leaving Certificate and Admit Card for computing his age and the date of his retirement from service accordingly. 4. In the order dated 24.08.2017, it was recorded as follows: “On examining the records and his personal file the following facts are found :- 1. Shri Madhab Ch. Kalita was appointed as Mouza Peon on 14/08/1984, and his joined in his service on 18/08/1984 as Mouza Peon (Grade-IV). His Service Book was opened on 19/12/1990 recording his date of birth as 30/06/1958 as per School Certificate submitted by him at the time of opening the Service Book, which was issued by the Headmaster, Borigog Hajo H.E. School on 28/02/1989. The incumbent concerned himself signed in the Service Book and the then EAC, Kamrup had countersigned the same as authentication in the Service Book as well as on the photo copy of certificate submitted by the incumbent. 2. Later Shri Kalita passed HSLC Examination on 1989 (after 5 years of his joining in the service as Mouza Peon (Grade-IV) and he was promoted to the post of Lower Division Assistant on 06/07/1996 and joined in the post of Lower Division Assistant on 18/07/1996. 3. The School Certificate submitted by Shri Kalita at the time of opening of the Service Book was issued by the Headmaster, Borigog Hajo H.E. School on 28/02/1989. On the other hand, the certificate now submitted by Shri Kalita with his petition was issued by the Principal, Goreswar higher Secondary School on 11/09/1989. 3. The School Certificate submitted by Shri Kalita at the time of opening of the Service Book was issued by the Headmaster, Borigog Hajo H.E. School on 28/02/1989. On the other hand, the certificate now submitted by Shri Kalita with his petition was issued by the Principal, Goreswar higher Secondary School on 11/09/1989. Means, Shri Kalita obtained 2 (two) different certificates from 2 (two) different Schools within a year. From the facts mentioned at pre-page it is clear that :- 1. Shri Kalita not directly recruited in the post of Lower Division Assistant. He was joined in the post of Lower Division Assistant on promotion. His original post was Mouza Peon. Hence, the date of birth recorded in his Service Book, when he was serving in his original post as Mouza Peon, now could not be changed, as per HSLC Admit Card of 1989, which was after 5 years of his Service as Mouza Peon. 2. Moreover, as per FRSR rules, an employee has to apply for correction of his date of birth on or before 3 years left to his retirement. As per entry of the Service Book the date of birth of Shri Kalita is - 30/06/1958. Accordingly, his date of retirement is - 30/06/2018. And Shri Kalita has applied for correction of his date of birth on 28/02/2017 to the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Rangia. Hence, on the date of his application (i.e., 28/02/2017) he has left for only 1 yr - 4 months-2 days to his retirement. From the observation made above, the petition dated - 28/02/2017, submitted by Shri Madhab Ch. Kalita, Jr. Asstt. of Kayan Revenue Circle praying to correct his date of birth could not be considered. Hence, the prayer of Shri Kalita is hereby rejected.” 5. The learned Single Judge, at paragraph 8 of his judgment, noted as follows: “[8] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. It may be noticed that although the petitioner has claimed that he submitted his HSLC examination certificate before the respondents authority concerned in the year 1989 itself after he passed the examination, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner sought alteration of his date of birth in his service book prior to 28.02.2017. It may be noticed that although the petitioner has claimed that he submitted his HSLC examination certificate before the respondents authority concerned in the year 1989 itself after he passed the examination, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner sought alteration of his date of birth in his service book prior to 28.02.2017. The representation of the petitioner dated 21.06.1996, seeking the consideration of his promotion from the post of peon to the post of L.D Assistant cannot be accepted as an application or representation for altering his date of birth in his service book. The fact remains that the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in his service book and as accepted by him by subscribing his signature on 05.09.1990 cannot be altered at the fag end of his service. By taking his date of birth as 30.06.1958, the date of his superannuation from service was 30.06.2018 and therefore, the application for correction of his date of birth submitted by him on 28.02.2017 is only belated. The note below Rule-8 of the Subsidiary Rules clearly prescribes that no application for alteration of date of birth should be entertained three years prior to the superannuation of the employee concerned. This Court in the case of Samir Kumar Mitra (Supra) had clearly held that Subsidiary Rules clearly prohibited entertainment of belated request for change of date of birth. Similar was view taken in the case of Upen Chandra Sarma (Supra) as well. The decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard were also referred to in the said two decisions. Therefore, it will not be necessary to reiterate the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in respect of belated request made by employees for altering their date of birth. Upon considering the case in its entirety, I find that the petitioner has not made out any exceptional case for changing his date of birth to 31.03.1961.” 6. We have perused the Service Book of the appellant, which is produced by Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Senior Government Advocate. In the Service Book, a signature of the appellant appears with the date 05.09.1990 and the date of birth is recorded as 30.06.1958. A signature of an Extra Assistant Commissioner (EAC) appears with the date 19.12.1990. We have perused the Service Book of the appellant, which is produced by Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Senior Government Advocate. In the Service Book, a signature of the appellant appears with the date 05.09.1990 and the date of birth is recorded as 30.06.1958. A signature of an Extra Assistant Commissioner (EAC) appears with the date 19.12.1990. It appears that the appellant had produced before the authority a certificate dated 28.02.1989, issued by the Headmaster of Borigog Hajo H.E. School, wherein it was certified that the appellant had left the school on 31.03.1975 and, as on that date, according to the Admission Register, the appellant’s age was 16 years 9 months. The certificate issued by the Headmaster of Borigog Hajo H.E. School also goes to show that the appellant was reading in Borigog Hajo H.E. School, in Class IX, and had not passed the examination for promotion to Class-X in 1975. The said certificate was a duplicate copy and, on the body of the said certificate, it is written as follows: “Seen and entered the date of birth in the Service Book.” The endorsement was signed by the EAC with the date 19.12.1990. 7. Thus, it appears that the date of birth was recorded in the Service Book of the appellant as 30.06.1958 based on the certificate produced by the appellant, which was issued by the Headmaster of Borigog Hajo H.E. School. There is no dispute that 30.06.1958 corresponds to 16 years 9 months as on 31.03.1975. 8. The appellant had also produced before the learned Single Judge a certificate dated 29.08.1989, issued by the Principal, Goreswar Higher Secondary School, wherein the date of birth of the appellant is shown as 31.03.1961. The said certificate is also produced before the writ appellate court. The appellant had also produced the Admit Card of the High School Leaving Certificate Examination (HSLC), which was scheduled to commence from 29.03.1989, wherein the date of birth of the appellant is shown as 31.03.1961. 9. It is not understood as to how a different date of birth could be recorded in the certificate of Principal, Goreswar Higher Secondary School, and in the HSLC Admit Card showing the date of birth of the appellant as 31.03.1961. 9. It is not understood as to how a different date of birth could be recorded in the certificate of Principal, Goreswar Higher Secondary School, and in the HSLC Admit Card showing the date of birth of the appellant as 31.03.1961. When the appellant had left Borigog Hajo H.E. School on 31.03.1975 at the age of 16 years 9 months, his date of birth has to be reckoned as 30.06.1958 and this date of birth, as reflected in the certificate issued by the Headmaster, Borigog Hajo H.E. School, has to be taken as the basis for reckoning the date of birth of the appellant for admission in any subsequent school. That apart, there is no dispute that it was the appellant who himself had produced the certificate dated 28.02.1989. In his application dated 28.02.2017, the appellant had not adverted to the certificate dated 28.02.1989 produced by him and had only pointed out that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in his Service Book as 30.06.1958. On the date of filing his application dated 28.02.2017, the appellant had only 1 year 4 months 2 days left for his retirement. The learned Single Judge rightly observed that the note below Rule 8 of the Subsidiary Rules clearly prohibits entertaining belated requests for change of date of birth. 10. We find no good ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and, accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.