JUDGMENT : KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J. 1. This intra-court appeal by the Employer calls in question the correctness of order dated 02.12.2021, whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court in 1st Respondent-Writ Petitioner’s W.P. No. 104807/2018 (SRES) has issued the following directions: “(i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned Communication dated 30.7.2018 at Annexure-A passed by the 3rd respondent is quashed. (iii) It is held that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service from the date he was relieved from the service till he retired from service on 10.5.2021 on attaining the age of superannuation (iv) The 3rd respondent is directed to extend service benefits flowing from this order within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” 2. The 1st Respondent-Writ Petitioner is represented by his private advocate. The Respondent-State and the Examination Board are represented by the learned AGA. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner vehemently resists this appeal making submissions in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured. Learned AGA having appreciably assisted this Court maintains equidistance from the Appellant-Employer and the Writ Petitioner-Employee. 3. FOUNDATIONAL FACTS OF THE CASE: (a) Appellant is a ‘Government Company’ as defined u/s 617 of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956. As a government undertaking, it answers the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India in the light of Apex Court decision in Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. The International Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628 . The Writ Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant way back in 1985; before gaining entry to the public service, he had submitted an application dated 28.07.1984 (Annexure A) mentioning 01.08.1958 as his date of birth and 26 years as his age. However, this one line having been struck off, he has re-scripted the same as “22nd July 1961, 26 years” by putting his initials. (b) On 19.07.2017, Appellant had issued notice to the petitioner as to why his date of birth should not be altered in accordance with what is stated in his educational records. Through a series of letters dated 12.09.2017, 21.10.2017, 24.11.2017, 14.12.2017, 01.01.2018 Petitioner sent his reply repelling the proposal. However, the Appellant issued a communication dated 30.07.2018 mentioning 01.08.1958 as his the date of birth as opposed to 22.07.1961. Through a series of letters dated 12.09.2017, 21.10.2017, 24.11.2017, 14.12.2017, 01.01.2018 Petitioner sent his reply repelling the proposal. However, the Appellant issued a communication dated 30.07.2018 mentioning 01.08.1958 as his the date of birth as opposed to 22.07.1961. Accordingly petitioner attained the age of 60 years on 31.07.2018 and retires from service on the same day. The authenticity of date of birth has been ascertained after procuring his authentic educational records from the jurisdictional government offices/institution. (c) As already mentioned above, the alteration of date of birth at the hands of the Appellant-Employer vide letter dated 30.07.2018 eventually resulted into determination of petitioners date of superannuation as being 31.07.2018. Aggrieved thereby, he had filed the subject Writ Petition which came to be favoured by the learned Single Judge by the order that is put in challenge in the present appeal. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: (a) Under our Constitutional paradigm, in matters of public employment, the State is bound to act in conformity with Part III and other provisions, such as Articles 309, 310 and 311. The Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 observed as under: “Public employment in a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic, has to be as set down by the Constitution and the laws made thereunder. Our constitutional scheme envisages employment by the Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf.......” Given that the Appellant-Employer is a government undertaking, the service therein partakes the character of public employment as distinguished from private engagement. Indisputably, an employee appointed to a public service has a right to continue therein, ordinarily until he attains the age of retirement. In the instant case, the age of superannuation has been fixed at 60 years, is not in dispute. (b) Superannuation of an employee being determined by the his age, ordinarily what is reflected in the service records is taken as true and correct, however, when there is an interpolation of the kind which in all probability has happened in the recent past, it is always open to the employer to ascertain the truth after hearing the employee and accordingly act upon the findings. It is not in dispute that all the educational records of the Petitioner reflect 01.08.1958 as being his authentic date of birth throughout. That being the position, there is absolutely no reason or rhyme for not acting upon the same for the purpose of computation of his age. Petitioner is not justified in contending that his interpolated date of birth, i.e. 22.07.1961 should be the basis for ascertaining his age. The Apex Court in State of M.P. vs. Mohanlal Sharma, (2002) 7 SCC 719 at paragraph 2 has observed as under: “2......The date of birth, as recorded in the matriculation examination, carries a greater evidential value than the evidential value attached to the certificate given by the retired headmaster showing the date of birth of the respondent. Such an evidence is not to be preferred when, admittedly, the date of birth of the respondent as recorded in the matriculation examination was 19-4-1935. The Tribunal erred in relying on the certificate issued by the retired headmaster as well as the horoscope furnished by the respondent.” The above observations, in all fours, cover the case of Writ Petitioner. Thus, the subject communication dated 30.07.2018 issued by the Appellant-Employer could not have been faltered by the learned Single Judge. (c) The above having been said, it is also worth noting that the alteration in the date of birth materially affects other employees as well and therefore correction even when erroneous is ordinarily not sanctioned as a matter of right. Deliberating a similar matter a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 146168/2020 between Sri. M.C. Subramaniam Reddy vs. The Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd. disposed off on 29.06.2020 at paragraph 22 observed as under: “22. The judgment relied on by the respondents in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Others vs. Shyam Kishore Singh, AIR 2020 SC 940 , is squarely applicable to the case on hand. M.C. Subramaniam Reddy vs. The Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd. disposed off on 29.06.2020 at paragraph 22 observed as under: “22. The judgment relied on by the respondents in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Others vs. Shyam Kishore Singh, AIR 2020 SC 940 , is squarely applicable to the case on hand. The Hon'ble Apex Court relying on several judgments has held that, even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, the correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right.....if a particular date of birth is entered in the service register, a change sought cannot be entertained at the fag end of service after accepting the same to be correct during entire service…In similar decisions the Apex Court has consistently held that the request for change of the date of birth in the service records at the fag end of service is not sustainable.....reiterating the proposition rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Home Department vs. R. Kirubakaran held that, any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in the process.....” (d) Petitioners job application dated 02.08.1984 is in typo-graphed form vide Annexure-A and Column No. 4 therein mentions “1st August 1958” as his date of birth and his age is specifically stated as 26 years. However, the date of birth & age are struck off by the stroke of a pen (by whomsoever it be) and the handwritten alteration reads as “22nd July 1961-26 years.” It also bears his short endorsement which is not disputed. Prima-facie he is the author of this alteration. Sir Edmond Locard’s (1877-1966) cardinal principle of Forensic Analysis states that ‘every contact leaves some trace’ the import of this being that ‘every crime contains a clue of its perpetrator’. This is not to cast an aspersion on the petitioner. This is yet again proved true even in the instant case where the petitioner has himself specifically written ‘26 years’ as being his age though the altered date of birth, i.e. 22.07.1961 show him to be younger by three years. No explanation is offered by the Petitioner for this. This is not to cast an aspersion on the petitioner. This is yet again proved true even in the instant case where the petitioner has himself specifically written ‘26 years’ as being his age though the altered date of birth, i.e. 22.07.1961 show him to be younger by three years. No explanation is offered by the Petitioner for this. It is prudent to consider the age stated by the person concerned than to compute it by taking the dates & figures given. This is on the analogy of the principle that the dimension of the property is decided on the basis of boundaries states than the figures of measurement, in the absence of other material corroborating the figures. Given the above, Petitioner was 26 year old when he had made the job application way back in the year 1984; thus it is a near impossibility that his year of birth is 1961. This aspect of the matter has not been duly considered by the learned Single Judge. (e) It is pertinent to mention that, other employees of the Appellant-Company vide letter dated 14.07.2017 had complained to the Government alleging that the Writ Petitioner “......has forged and misrepresented his date of birth to illegally gain more service....” (sic) That is how the proceedings for the verification of his date of birth were commenced after issuing multiple notices and taking reply from him. The subject communication dated 30.07.2018 restoring the correct date of birth and consequent superannuation of the petitioner has been issued after verifying the records secured from the SSLC Board This has been done after duly following the principles of natural justice. The focal point of the Writ Court being the decision making process and not the decision itself. (f) The reliance of petitioner on the rectified Birth Certificate dated 23.11.2017 does not much come to his rescue inasmuch as even there the date of birth has been altered by the Tahasildar vide Order No. STT/Vahi/191/17-18 as reflected in Annexure-J to the Writ Petition. However, what was the original entry and why the endorsement is made in the year 2017 are not forthcoming from this record apparently generated under the provisions of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka vs. T. Srinivas, ILR 1987 Kar. However, what was the original entry and why the endorsement is made in the year 2017 are not forthcoming from this record apparently generated under the provisions of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka vs. T. Srinivas, ILR 1987 Kar. 1843 having construed the provisions of this Act has observed: “The Act is a regulatory act providing for the registration of births and deaths and no rights are created under that Act by the mere fact of registration of birth or death of a person.” The above observations support the case of Appellant Employer as rightly contended by leaned GA. (g) As already mentioned above, the dispute as to petitioner’s date of birth arose on the complaint of his own colleagues who had alleged fraud and fabrication of records. The appellant had sent notices dated 12.09.2017, 24.11.2017, 14.12.2017 and 01.01.2018 calling upon the Petitioner to produce authentic records such as school certificate, SSLC Marks Card, Leaving Certificate, and Transfer Certificate in the original for the verification of his date of birth. However, he did not produce any of them nor other cogent material in support of his defence. Therefore, the Appellant-Employer himself obtained all the educational records from the jurisdictional schools and authorities which reflected the true and correct date of birth i.e. 01.08.1958 and not 22.07.1961. This apart, Petitioner’s reliance on the entries in Aadhaar Card and in the Driving License being in variance with the correct date of birth do not come to his aide in view of his authentic educational records, maintained by the public offices in the discharge of their official duties. (h) We have carefully perused the appeal paper book which comprises of all the documents produced by the Petitioner and the Appellant before the learned Single Judge. They fully support the version of the Appellant that the Petitioner’s date of birth is 01.08.1958 and not 22.07.1961. The finding that the interpolation in the subject representation of the year 1984 prima facie appears to have been done by the Petitioner himself, he being the only beneficiary thereof. All this has come to light only after co-employees complained to the Government that the Petitioner was unlawfully trying to continue in the employment beyond the age of superannuation. The finding that the interpolation in the subject representation of the year 1984 prima facie appears to have been done by the Petitioner himself, he being the only beneficiary thereof. All this has come to light only after co-employees complained to the Government that the Petitioner was unlawfully trying to continue in the employment beyond the age of superannuation. What Justice Rama M Jois ‘Services under the State’ 657-658, (ILI 2007) writes in his magnum opus is also illuminating: “Power of state to make correction: Even in the absence of any specific rule conferring power on the state government to correct the date of birth of an official entered in the service register, the state government may make an enquiry into the correctness of the date of birth of an official and correct it. The alteration of date of birth and consequential retirement earlier does not amount to imposition of any penalty. The high court cannot interfere unless the decision was taken without giving opportunity...” 5. In the above circumstances, this appeal succeeds. The impugned Judgment of the learned Single Judge is set at naught, costs having reluctantly been made easy. 6. Before parting with this case, this court places on record, its deep appreciation for the able assistance and research rendered by its official Law Clerk Cum Research Assistant, Mr. Faiz Afsar Sait.