JUDGMENT : The Writ Court’s decision in W.P.(S) No. 4083 of 2021 has been challenged by the appellant on the ground that date of birth of an employee can be corrected even at the fag end of the service provided there is unimpeachable documentary evidence in support thereof. 2. The appellant has pleaded that at the time of his appointment on the post of sweeper under the Bharat Cooking Coal Limited (BCCL) in the year 1987 a Medical Board was constituted and his age was assessed around 19 years at that time. On the other hand, the BCCL referred to the school leaving certificate and an affidavit duly sworn by the appellant wherein he himself disclosed his date of birth on 6th December 1961. The stand taken by the BCCL is that the date of superannuation of the appellant has been fixed on the basis of the aforementioned documents produced by the appellant himself. 3. The writ court referred to “State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan” (1994) 6 SCC 302 , “Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department v. R. Kirubakaran” 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155, “Manik Chand Ghosh v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors.” 2004 (1) JCR 51 (Jhr.), “State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble” (2010) 14 SCC 423 , “State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas” (2011) 9 SCC 664 and “Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. v. Shyam Kishore Singh” (2020) 2 Supreme Today 189 and formed an opinion that the writ petition seeking a direction for correction in the date of birth was not maintainable. 4. The writ Court held as under : “5. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in this writ petition. Admittedly, the age of retirement has been fixed on the documents furnished by the petitioner himself. The school leaving certificate as well as affidavit sworn by the petitioner shows the date of birth as 6.12.1961 and in the service excepts also, date of birth has been mentioned as 6.12.1961. Considering these aspects of the matter, the petitioner has been rightly made to retire on 31.12.2021. The Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of decisions has held that request for change of date of birth in service records at the fag end of service career is not sustainable. 6. In case of State of Tamil Nandu Vs. The Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of decisions has held that request for change of date of birth in service records at the fag end of service career is not sustainable. 6. In case of State of Tamil Nandu Vs. T.V. Venugopalan, reported (1994) 6 SCC 302 , the Hon’ble Apex Court was clearly of the opinion that the government servant should not be permitted to correct the date of birth at the fag end of his service career. The Court, in very strong terms, observed as under:- ".....The government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service register.” 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department & Ors. Vs. R. Kirubakaran, reported in 1994 Suppl. (1) SCC 155, has held as under: “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. 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. 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.” 8. This Hon’ble Court dealing with the similar issue in case of Manik Chand Ghosh Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2004 (1) JCR 51 (Jhr.), has held that, date of birth once recorded and entered in the service record, counter-signed by the government servant, he should not be permitted to challenge at the fag end of his service. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors., reported in (2010) 14 SCC 423 has held that: “16. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Vs. Raj Kumar Agnihotri [ (2005) 11 SCC 465 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 96]. In this case, this Court has considered a number of judgments of this Court and observed that the grievances 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 Vs. Pitamber Dutt Semwal [ (2005) 11 SCC 477 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 106] 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 of the High Court, this Court observed that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision after almost three decades.” 10. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterating the same view, in case of State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664 has held as under:- “8. While setting aside the judgment of the High Court, this Court observed that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision after almost three decades.” 10. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterating the same view, in case of State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664 has held as under:- “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. 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.” 11. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh, reported in (2020) 2 Supreme Today 189, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, “request for change of the date of birth in the service records at the fag end of service is not sustainable.” 12. These decisions lead to a different dimension of the case that correction of date of birth at the fag end would be at the cost of large number of employees, therefore, any correction at the fag end must be discouraged by the Court. 13. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.” 5. Now this is the law settled through a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a mandamus cannot be issued for correction of date of birth at the fag end of the service. In “Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department v. R. Kirubakaran” 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the application seeking correction in the date of birth should be made within the time fixed by the rule/circular/notification of the employer and in absence of any rule or order it should be made within a reasonable time. Therefore, a writ Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not enter into the dispute as regards age of an employee and that too when the controversy is sought to be raised at the fag end of the service. Therefore, a writ Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not enter into the dispute as regards age of an employee and that too when the controversy is sought to be raised at the fag end of the service. The logic behind not entering into such dispute is that it may affect a large number of employees in service if correction in the date of birth of an employee is permitted at the fag end of service. 6. Recently, in “Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T. P. Nataraja & Ors.” 2021 SCC OnLine SC 767, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the law on the subject. In “Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited”, the applicant had moved an application for correction in the date of birth after inordinate delay and in that background the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the application for change in date of birth was liable to be rejected. The Hon’ble Supreme Court summarized the law as under : “22. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on change of date of birth can be summarized 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 latches 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.” 7. Having examined the materials on record, we do not see any reason to defer with the writ Court’s decision. The procedure adopted by the BCCL for requiring an employee to undergo medical examination at the time of appointment is definitely not for the purpose of assessing the age of the candidate rather the medical examination is conducted for examining the medical fitness of the candidate. Moreover, the appellant who himself tendered the school leaving certificate and submitted an affidavit which record his date of birth 6th December 1961 cannot go back to the medical fitness examination conducted in the year 1987 and seek correction in his date of birth. 8. While so, the L.P.A. No. 86 of 2023 is dismissed.