ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the seniority list published online by the office of the BCCL to the extent that the date of retirement of the petitioner has been shown as 30.06.2023. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in his service records as provided in the matriculation certificate which is 17.08.1967 in place of 01.07.1963. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of ‘Piece Rated UG/Miner Loader’ vide appointment letter dated 18/22.11.1982 on compassionate ground upon death of his father in harness and accordingly, he joined the said post on 07.12.1982. Thereafter, he was transferred to Moonidih Washery Project of the BCCL vide office order dated 18.08.1983. The petitioner was promoted to the posts of Clerk-III vide office order dated 11.01.1984, Clerk (NF) Special Class vide office order dated 31.10.2009 and Office Superintendent, Grade A vide office order dated 01.11.2016. 3. It is further submitted that the respondent-BCCL published a seniority list on its website in which the date of retirement of the petitioner has been shown as 30.06.2023 mentioning his date of birth as 01.07.1963. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representation dated 25.07.2022 before the respondent no. 4 – the General Manager, Western Jharia Area, Moonidih, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad for correcting his date of birth in the service record, however, the same has not yet been corrected. Though the petitioner had submitted his educational certificates before the respondent authorities wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was clearly mentioned as 17.08.1967, however, he is being forced to retire on 30.06.2023 treating his date of birth as 01.07.1963. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submits that no educational certificate was produced by the petitioner while entering in service and as such his age was assessed in terms with Clause-A(iv) of the Implementation Instruction No. 76 (Procedure for determination/verification of age of employees) of NCWA-III meant for determination of age at the time of appointment with respect to illiterate candidates and accordingly, his date of birth was assessed on 07.12.1982 (i.e., the date of joining) as 07.06.1963. 5. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner appeared in matriculation examination after entering in service and as per NCWA-III, the post acquired qualification of the petitioner as well as his certificates obtained after employment showing his date of birth as 17.08.1967 cannot be entertained. 6. It is also submitted that the petitioner himself has signed his PS-3 and PS-4 Forms in which his date of birth has been mentioned as 01.07.1963. In the statutory Form-B wherein the petitioner’s age has been mentioned as 07.06.1963, he has put his signature without any objection. Moreover, in the Health Card Register also, the date of birth of the petitioner is entered as 07.06.1963. It is well settled principle of law that the date of birth of an employee cannot be changed in the service record at the fag end of service. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner claims for correction of his date of birth in the service record including the one mentioned the seniority list contending that his date of birth has wrongly been recorded as 01.07.1963 in the said seniority list and as 07.06.1963 in the Form B instead of 17.08.1967. 8. The thrust of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the educational certificate of the petitioner, his date of birth is clearly mentioned as 17.08.1967, however, the same has wrongly been recorded in the service record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the discrepancy in the statutory Form-B contending that on the one hand, the age of the petitioner has been mentioned as 19 years as on 07.12.1982, however, on the other hand, his date of birth has been shown as 07.06.1963. Both the facts are contradictory to each other. If the age of the petitioner was assessed as 19 years on 07.12.1982, then his date of birth should have been determined as 07.12.1963. However, the same was mentioned as 07.06.1963 and as such the said date of birth cannot be treated as genuine so as to make him retire on 30.06.2023. 9. If the age of the petitioner was assessed as 19 years on 07.12.1982, then his date of birth should have been determined as 07.12.1963. However, the same was mentioned as 07.06.1963 and as such the said date of birth cannot be treated as genuine so as to make him retire on 30.06.2023. 9. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court vide order dated 28.06.2023 had directed the respondents to produce the original Statutory Form-B of the petitioner and pursuant to the said order, learned counsel for the respondents has produced the same in original before this Court. On bare perusal of Form-B register, it appears that the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 07.06.1963 and he has also put his signature on the same. The said fact has not been disputed by the petitioner. Since his age has been mentioned as 19 years as on 07.12.1982 in the said Form further unambiguously specifying his date of birth as 07.06.1963, the same has to be reckoned as authentic one for all official purposes particularly when the petitioner has also put his signature on the said Form. In Form PS-3 and Form PS-4, the age of the petitioner has been written as 01.07.1963 which is 23 days more than the date of birth written in the Form-B which was filled up at the time of entering into the service. Nonetheless, the respondents have treated his date of birth as 01.07.1963. 10. The respondents have also annexed a copy of Implementation Instruction No. 76 issued under NCWA-III in the counter affidavit, wherein the procedure for determination/verification of age of an employee has been provided and as per Clause A(iv), the date of birth of an illiterate person has to be determined by the Colliery Medical Officer keeping in view any documentary and other relevant evidence as produced by the appointee. It has further been provided that the date of birth as determined shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstance. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim for correction of his date of birth on the basis of his matriculation certificate which was obtained by him after entering in service. 11. Another aspect is that the petitioner has raised the claim for correction of his date of birth at the fag end of his service. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim for correction of his date of birth on the basis of his matriculation certificate which was obtained by him after entering in service. 11. Another aspect is that the petitioner has raised the claim for correction of his date of birth at the fag end of his service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in catena of judgments have held that the correction in the date of birth is not permissible at the fag end of service. 12. In the case of “Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd. Vs. T.P. Nataraja”, reported in (2021) 12 SCC 27 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring several previous judgments, has summarized the law on change of date of birth of an employee, the relevant part of which is quoted hereinbelow for the ready reference in the present case: 10.1. In Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran [Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155] , it is observed and held as under : (SCC p. 158, para 7) “7. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out 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 this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion forever.” 10.2. In State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas [State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 ] in paras 8 and 12, it is observed and held as under : (SCC pp. 667 & 669) “8. In State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas [State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 ] in paras 8 and 12, it is observed and held as under : (SCC pp. 667 & 669) “8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag-end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he 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. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights (see [Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 ]). 12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty-bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book.” 10.3. In [LIC v. R. Basavaraju, (2016) 15 SCC 781], it is observed as under : (SCC p. 782, para 5) “5. The law with regard to correction of date of birth has been time and again discussed by this Court and held that once the date of birth is entered in the service record, as per the educational certificates and accepted by the employee, the same cannot be changed. Not only that, this Court has also held that a claim for change in date of birth cannot be entertained at the fag-end of retirement.” 10.4. In [Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 ] of which one of us (A.S. Bopanna, J.) was a party to the Bench has observed and held in paras 9 & 10 as under : (SCC pp. 415-17) “9. This 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. The learned Additional Solicitor General has in that regard relied on the decision in [State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble, (2010) 14 SCC 423 ] wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court were taken note of and it was held as hereunder: (SCC pp. 428-29, paras 16-17 & 19) ‘16. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri [U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, (2005) 11 SCC 465 ]. 428-29, paras 16-17 & 19) ‘16. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri [U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri, (2005) 11 SCC 465 ]. In this case, this Court has considered a number of judgments of this Court and observed that the grievance as to the date of birth in the service record should not be permitted at the fag-end of the service career. 17. In another judgment in [State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal, (2005) 11 SCC 477 ] relief was denied to the government employee on the ground that he sought correction in the service record after nearly 30 years of service. While setting aside the judgment [Pitamber Dutt Semwal v. State of U.P., 1999 SCC OnLine All 1610] of the High Court, this Court observed that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision after almost three decades. 19. These decisions lead to a different dimension of the case that correction at the fag-end would be at the cost of a large number of employees, therefore, any correction at the fag-end must be discouraged by the court. The relevant portion of the judgment in [Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155] reads as under : (SCC pp. 158-59, para 7) “7. An application for correction of the date of birth [by a public servant cannot be entertained at the fag-end of his service]. It need not be pointed out 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 this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their promotion forever. … According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. … According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, 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. Before any such direction is issued, the court or the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. … the onus is on the applicant to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book.” 10. This Court in fact has also 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. In that regard, in [State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 ] it is held as hereunder : (SCC pp. 667 & 669, paras 8 & 12) ‘8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag-end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he 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. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights (see [Union of India v. Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162 ]). 12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty-bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book.’ ” 11. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on change of date of birth can be summarised as under: (i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable; (ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right; (iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also more particularly when it is made at the fag-end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. 13. 13. Thus, correction in date of birth cannot be claimed by an employee as a matter of right even if there is some evidence for the same and the application for correction in date of birth can be rejected when it is made at the time when he is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any ground to entertain the prayer made in the present writ petition. 15. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.