JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Peeyush Chitresh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned S.C. (land and Mines)-III for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 24.03.2010, which is annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner has been asked to retire at the age of 60 years on 30.04.2010. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is illegal and arbitrary as the date of birth of the petitioner is 29.10.1960 whereas the management has considered the date of birth as 29.10.1950. 3. Mr. Peeyush Chitresh, counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the age of the petitioner the petitioner has submitted several documents which he had brought on record from which it transpires that the date of birth of the petitioner is 29.10.1960. Further, counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide letter dated 29.04.2003 (annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition) the petitioner submitted documents in support of his date of birth and also sweared an affidavit (annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition) and the petitioner also submitted the statements with respect to the accounts of contributory Provident Fund was also been given to the petitioner for the years 2005-06 and also in the year 2006-07 wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 29.10.1960 and the date of retirement also reflected as 29.10.2020. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Bakshi, learned counsel for the respondents submit that at the time of employment the petitioner has filled up the form mentioning his age 34 years it appears that with connivance with other officers manipulation/cut has been made in the form at the place of age of the petitioner and the age of the petitioner was inserted as 24 years and there is no any signature and initial was made on the cut place in the form which was filled up by the petitioner. The date of birth of the petitioner is 29.10.1950 in view of the form he submitted. Mr. Bakshi further submits that petitioner has not produced any certificates or documents to substantiate his claim that his date of birth is 29.10.1960. The date of birth of the petitioner is 29.10.1950 in view of the form he submitted. Mr. Bakshi further submits that petitioner has not produced any certificates or documents to substantiate his claim that his date of birth is 29.10.1960. Further, he submits that, therefore, the documents submitted by the petitioner in support of his date of birth such as Pan Card and Voter ID Card which are made only on the submission of the person and that cannot be considered as proof of his date of birth as 29.10.1960 in absence of any certificate issued by school/college. 5. Considering the above facts, this Court finds force in the submission of Mr. Bakshi. No case is made out for interference of this Court by the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.