JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. The present petition has been filed challenging' the discharge order dated 17-3-2003 on the basis of date of birth of the petitioner as 1-3-1945. 2. Learned Advocate Mr. Vasavada appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the discharge order would not have been passed from the aforesaid date of birth since the affidavit filed by his mother states that he was born on 1-3-1947 and not on 1-3-1945. 3. Learned Advocate Ms. Maya Desai appearing for the respondent has submitted, that in fact, the date of birth at the relevant time was recorded as per the School Leaving Certificate which discloses the birth date as 1-3-1945 of the petitioner. She has submitted that in fact the respondent has inquired in the Board with regard to the date of birth and it was found that the same was 1-3-1945. Subsequently, the petitioner has produced the notification of the Official Gazette rectifying the date of birth from 1-3-1947 instead of 1-3-1945 on the basis of the affidavit filed by his mother. Thus, she has submitted that the petitioner was rightly discharged from his services recording his correct date of birth. 4. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. The perusal of the documents on record of the petition shows that the petitioner has not produced any official document showing his registration of date of birth as 1-3-1947 either from the Municipal Authorities or the Panchayat Authorities. The petitioner has also not produced the School Leaving Certificate before this Court. 5. It appears that earlier the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 3492 of 2003 before this Court and vide order dated 2-4-2003 the same was permitted to be withdrawn with a view to make a representation before the authority. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondents have passed an order dated 7-10-2003 wherein, it is specifically stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in Gujarat Electricity Board in the year 1972 on 5-2-1972 and while joining the services he had disclosed his birth date as 1-3-1945 which was mentioned in his School Leaving Certificate and the Board has accepted the said birth date and afforded him the employment in the Board. 6. 6. It appears that vide Notification of Government of Gujarat dated 16-8-1984, the date of birth of the petitioner was changed from 1-3-1945 to 1-3-1947 on the basis of the affidavit filed by his mother. Thus, it appears that thereafter on the aforesaid notification, his date of birth was recorded as 1-3-1947 by the respondent office under the order dated 27-11-1984. Thereafter, the Board while carrying out a verification of the birth date of the employees had issued a Circular dated 17-6-1997 in order to ascertain the correct date of birth on the basis of the School Leaving Certificate in respect of the qualified employees. Based on the above guidelines and after due verification, the respondent had issued a letter to the petitioner on 3-1-1998 whereby, it was pointed out that his birth date 1-3-1945 as recorded in his School Leaving Certificate was considered as correct birth date and he was offered the employment. 7. The petitioner has challenged the said action by filing Special Civil Application No. 6963 of 1998, which was rejected vide order dated 12-2-1999 with an observation that the Board shall pass afresh order after issuing a show-cause notice against the proposed action after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid order the petitioner had requested for the Circular dated 17-6-1997 issued by the Board regarding the verification of the birth date. The respondent-Board had supplied the same on 8-3-1999, and thereafter, the petitioner had not represented his case further. 8. When the petitioner retired on 17-3-2002 on superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years w.e.f. 31-3-2003 the petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No. 3429 of 2003 against his retirement, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 2-4-2003, directing the respondent to examine the representation of the petitioner in light of Circular dated 17-6-1997. Thereafter, vide impugned order the request of the petitioner was rejected. 9. It is not in dispute that the birth date of the petitioner 1-3-1947 is based on the affidavit filed by his mother in the year 1984, which was filed almost after 37 years. The same was published in the Official Gazette on 16-8-1984. At the relevant time, the petitioner was offered the appointment on the date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate. The same was published in the Official Gazette on 16-8-1984. At the relevant time, the petitioner was offered the appointment on the date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate. The date of birth which was altered to 1-3-1947 on the basis of the affidavit filed by his mother after 37 years cannot be given regarded as a valid proof of birth date, though, it is notified in the Official Gazette since no material is produced on record which had constrained the mother of the petitioner to file an affidavit altering his date of birth. It is not stated that the change in the date of birth was necessitated due to incorrect date of birth recorded in Births and Deaths Register of the local authority or there existed some document of local authority which displayed the date of birth as 1-3-1947 and not as 1-3-1945. In absence of any such material the date of birth of the petitioner as 1-3-1947 cannot be endorsed. 10. Even otherwise, the petitioner remained dormant from the year 1999 till he retired in the year 2003 and did not pursue the remedies even after passing of the order by this Court on 12-2-1999 in Special Civil Application No. 6369 of 1998. When he retired in the year 2003, he filed Special Civil Application No. 3429 of 2003 which was disposed of vide order dated 2-4-2003 by directing the respondents to consider the representation. 11. Thus, the present petition, in view of the aforesaid observation fails the legal scrutiny, the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.