JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. 1. Heard Mr. G. Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel for the Guwahati Municipal Corporation appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present proceeding has assailed an order dated 09.12.2015, passed by the Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation, rejecting his prayer for correction of his date of birth as recorded in his service book. 3. The facts requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under. 4. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner, in the year 1985 was enrolled as a Daily Wage Labour under the Guwahati Municipal Corporation, Guwahati. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.10.1986, the petitioner, on completion of one year of continuous service, was permanently engaged as a Casual Labour on daily rated basis. The authorities of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation vide order dated 26.06.1992, proceeded to regularize the services of the petitioner and other similarly situated person as “Majdoor” on completion of 05(five) years of continuous service. The petitioner was thereafter, vide order dated 04.03.2009, granted Supervisor grade fixed pay scale. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties as a Supervisor under the Guwahati Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Secretary, Guwahati Municipal Corporation, Guwahati, had issued communication dated 24.09.2015 to the petitioner and therein, it was stated that the petitioner would attain the age of superannuation on 29.11.2015 and accordingly, he was directed to hand over charge of the post held by him to the departmental head on 30.11.2015. 5. Being aggrieved by the said communication dated 24.09.2015, the petitioner approached this Court by way of instituting WP (C) 6739/2015, assailing the said communication dated 24.09.2015. 6. This Court, vide order dated 13.11.2015, on appreciating the materials coming on record was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition by directing the Commissioner, GMC, Guwahati, to consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, before giving effect to the superannuation notice dated 24.09.2015. The petitioner, accordingly, on 21.11.2015, submitted his representation before the Commissioner, GMC, Guwahati and therein, enclosed documents in support of his claim with regard to his actual date of birth. The petitioner, in his said representation prayed for fixing his date of birth in his official records taking into note the documents brought on record by him. 7. The petitioner, accordingly, on 21.11.2015, submitted his representation before the Commissioner, GMC, Guwahati and therein, enclosed documents in support of his claim with regard to his actual date of birth. The petitioner, in his said representation prayed for fixing his date of birth in his official records taking into note the documents brought on record by him. 7. The Commissioner, GMC, Guwahati, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 05.12.2015, proceeded to dispose of the representation dated 21.11.2015, vide order dated 09.12.2015. The claim made by the petitioner in the said representation dated 21.11.2015, praying for correction of his date of birth came to be rejected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 8. Mr. G. Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts as noticed herein above, has submitted that the respondent authorities had in his service records, recorded his date of birth as “29.11.55” without any basis. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to a certificate issued by the Principal In-charge, Ramdia Higher Secondary School on 28.10.2015, has submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner in his school records was recorded as “22.04.1969.” Mr. Rahul, learned counsel has further submitted that the date of birth as recorded in his school records is also reflected in the voter’s list of 2016, containing the name of the petitioner, wherein his age has been reflected to be 44 years. Mr. Rahul, learned counsel has further placed reliance on a certificate issued by the village Head Man of village Majorkury dated 27.10.2015, wherein also the date of birth of the petitioner was denoted as 44 years by referring to the voter’s list of 2016 of 55 No. Hajo Legislative Assembly. Mr. Rahul, learned counsel has further referred to a certificate issued by the Senior Medical and Health Officer; Kamrup, Assam dated 30.10.2015, wherein also the date of birth of the petitioner was denoted as 44 years. Mr. Rahul, learned counsel in view of the above documents has submitted that the age of the petitioner as recorded in his service record, maintained by the respondent authorities, came to be so recorded without any basis. 9. In this connection, Mr. Mr. Rahul, learned counsel in view of the above documents has submitted that the age of the petitioner as recorded in his service record, maintained by the respondent authorities, came to be so recorded without any basis. 9. In this connection, Mr. Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the following statement made by the petitioner in Paragraph-7 of the writ petition: “.......................The petitioner has been made to understand that the entire exercise of the respondents of declaring the petitioner of attaining the age of superannuation is on the basis of a certificate submitted by the Committees for Regularization of service (Cell) on 29.11.1990, wherein the petitioner’s age at that point of time has been recorded as 35 years. The petitioner till date was never aware about the existence of such a certificate declaring him to be 35 years of age on 29.11.1990.” Mr. Rahul, learned counsel has accordingly submitted that the age as determined in respect of the petitioner as on 29.11.1990, was clearly erroneous and such determination was so done unilaterally by the respondents without any reference to the petitioner. 10. Mr. G. Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the order dated 09.12.2015, passed by the Commissioner, GMC, Guwahati, rejecting his claim for correction of his date of birth has submitted that the said authority had rejected his application only on the ground that such application was not preferred before three years of the date of his actual superannuation. By referring to the provisions of S.R. 8c of the F.R. & S.R., Mr. Rahul, learned counsel has submitted that the date of birth as recorded in his service records as “29.11.55” being not to the knowledge of the petitioner, he was not in a position to take steps for rectification of the said records and the petitioner being only a “Majdoor” at the time of regularization of his services, cannot be held to have understood the consequence of recording such erroneous date of birth in his service records. In the above premises, Mr. Rahul, learned counsel submits that the order dated 09.12.2015 along with the superannuation notice dated 24.09.2015 would require an interference by this Court and the respondent authorities would be required to be directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner by taking into account the documents submitted by the petitioner along with his representation dated 21.11.2015. 11. Mr. Rahul, learned counsel submits that the order dated 09.12.2015 along with the superannuation notice dated 24.09.2015 would require an interference by this Court and the respondent authorities would be required to be directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner by taking into account the documents submitted by the petitioner along with his representation dated 21.11.2015. 11. Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, GMC, Guwahati appearing for the respondents has submitted that the service book of the petitioner was opened on 20.03.1993 and his date of birth therein was recorded as “29.11.55” as per the report of the committee for Regularization of Service. Mr. Bora, learned counsel has produced the original personal file of the petitioner, herein, which also contains his service book opened on 03.05.1993. Mr. Bora has submitted that the date of birth recorded in his service book as “29.11.55” was accepted by the petitioner to be correct by appending his signature at the designated place as a mark of acceptance of the particulars so recorded in the first page of his service book. Mr. Bora, learned counsel in view of the materials available in the matter has submitted that the claim of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth, so made at the fag end of his service tenure, cannot be entertained and accordingly, the present writ petition requires to be dismissed in limine. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 13. The service particulars of the petitioner as noted herein above, is not disputed to by the respondents. The claim of the petitioner, herein, is that the date of birth as recorded in his service book, which was opened on 20.03.1993, as “29.11.55” was so recorded basing on a determination made by a Committee for Regularization of Services of the Casual Employees, wherein a Medical Officer was also present. The original personal file of the petitioner was produced before this Court, on 06.11.2024 and this Court had perused the same. 14. On perusal of the said service book, it is revealed that the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded therein as “29.11.55” and the petitioner had without any objection signed at the designated place in the first page of the service book as a mark of acceptance of the particulars so recorded therein. 14. On perusal of the said service book, it is revealed that the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded therein as “29.11.55” and the petitioner had without any objection signed at the designated place in the first page of the service book as a mark of acceptance of the particulars so recorded therein. Accordingly, the plea of the petitioner that he was not in the know-how of his date of birth recorded by the respondents in his service book till the date of receipt of the superannuation notice dated 24.09.2015, would not merit acceptance and that too at such distant point of time. Further, the petitioner has not disputed his signature appearing in the first page of his service book, wherein his date of birth was recorded as “29.11.55.” The petitioner had never approached the authorities praying for correction of the date of birth recorded in his service book, till approaching this Court by instituting WP(C)6739/2015. 15. It is a settled position of law that the date of birth as recorded in the service book of an employee cannot be permitted to be altered at the fag end of the service career of the employee concerned. Provisions of S.R. 8c of the F.R. & S.R., mandates that the request for change of date of birth recorded in a service book of an employee would be permissible to be entertained within a period of 3(three) years prior to the original date of superannuation of such employee. In the present case, the original date of superannuation of the petitioner, in terms of the date of birth recorded in his service book, was “30.11.2015.” Accordingly, any application for change of such recorded date of birth from the petitioner, herein, would have been permissible to be accepted by the respondent authorities prior to “30.11.2012.” Admittedly, the petitioner had not taken any steps for correction of his date of birth recorded in his service book till institution of the proceeding in WP (C) 6739/2015. Accordingly, the conclusions reached by the Commissioner, GMC, Guwahati in his order dated 09.12.2015 being in compliance with the provisions of S.R. 8c of the F.R. & S.R. such conclusions would not call for any interference. 16. Accordingly, the conclusions reached by the Commissioner, GMC, Guwahati in his order dated 09.12.2015 being in compliance with the provisions of S.R. 8c of the F.R. & S.R. such conclusions would not call for any interference. 16. At this stage, the prayer of the petitioner as made in the present proceeding, praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities, more particularly, the Commissioner, GMC, Guwahati, to determine his date of birth by taking into account the documents submitted by the petitioner along with his representation dated 21.11.2015, is being considered. 17. The petitioner, vide the said representation, in addition to the orders issued by the authorities from time to time, engaging him on casual basis and thereafter, regularizing him from his services and the superannuation notice dated 24.09.2015, had relied upon the following documents: (a) School Certificate dated 28.10.2015. (b) Copy of the voter list for the year 2016. (c) Certificate dated 27.10.2015 issued by the Village Headman. (d) Certificate dated 30.10.2015 issued by the Senior Medical and Health Officer. 18. The said documents as submitted by the petitioner have been examined by this Court. The said School Certificate, relied upon by the petitioner was issued only on 28.10.2015. There is no averment made by the petitioner in the writ petition that a similar School Certificate, issued at the time he had left the school, i.e. in the year 1985, was submitted by him before the respondent authorities either at the time of his engagement on casual basis or at the time of regularization of his services. In the event, the petitioner had actually studied in the school in question from where the said certificate was so issued on 28.10.2015, the same could have been produced by the petitioner at the time of his initial entry into service or atleast at the time of regularization of his service. It is to be noted that in the School Certificate, the petitioner’s date of birth was recorded as “22.04.1969.” 19. The petitioner has thereafter, relied upon a voter’s list of 2016, wherein, he has been enlisted as a voter and against his name, his age has been recorded as 44 years. The date of birth of the petitioner in terms of the age recorded in the said voter’s list of 2016 would work out to a date in the year 1972. The date of birth of the petitioner in terms of the age recorded in the said voter’s list of 2016 would work out to a date in the year 1972. It is not averred that the petitioner had taken steps for correction of his age as recorded in the said voter’s list to make it in tune with the date of birth purportedly, recorded in his School Certificate as “22.04.1969.” Accordingly, we have 02 dates of birth emerging in respect of the petitioner i.e. 22.04.1969 as per his School Leaving Certificate and a date in the year 1972 as per the voter’s list of 2016. 20. The third document relied upon by the petitioner is a certificate issued by the Village Headman of village Majorkury and therein, also there is no independent declaration made with regard to the age of the petitioner and the age of the petitioner has been so fixed in the said certificate by referring to the voter’s list of 2016. 21. The other document which has been relied upon by the petitioner in support of his claim is a Certificate issued by the Senior Medical and Health Officer, Kamrup, Assam, wherein it has been certified that the age of the petitioner is about 44 years, however, it is surprising to note that the medical authority, issuing the said certificate had certified the age of the petitioner not on the basis of any medical examination and/or test but had so declared the age of the petitioner basing on the voter list of 2016. 22. The discussions made herein above, with regard to the documents relied upon by the petitioner would go to reveal that the same would not advance the case of the petitioner to dispute the date of birth recorded in his service records at the time of his regularization of services in the year 1993. 23. In view of the above position, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has miserably failed to bring on record materials to dispute the date of birth recorded in his service book as “29.11.55.” Further, the documents relied upon by the petitioner to justify his date of birth as “22.04.1969” does not inspire confidence and the same cannot be relied upon. Further, as revealed from the service book of the petitioner, the petitioner had without any objection, appended his signature as a mark of acceptance of the particulars recorded in the first page of his service book and therein, the date of his birth having been so recorded as “29.11.55.” Accordingly, the petitioner cannot be now permitted to resile back from the said position. 24. In view of the conclusions reached herein above, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs.