JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Sourabh Arun, learned counsel for the appellant and Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent BCCL. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24-07-2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4274/2023, whereby and whereunder, the challenge made to the letter as contained in Memo No. 710 dated 04-02-2020 issued by the respondent no. 3 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for correction in his date of birth has been negated and the writ application has been dismissed. 3. Briefly stated the facts reveal that the elder brother of the writ petitioner was employed in the respondent company as a Night Guard in Koridih Colliery, but unfortunately, he died in harness on 13-03-1995 which triggered an application submitted by the sister-in-law of the petitioner requesting the concerned authority to provide appointment to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was accordingly provided with compassionate appointment on the post of minor/loader on 27-05-1996. In the Form-B register, the date of birth of the writ petitioner was mentioned as 30 years as on 22-02-1996. The writ petitioner in the year 2016, came to know that in all the relevant records of the company, his date of birth has been mentioned as 22-02- 1966, though in the Tabulation Register issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, his date of birth has been mentioned as 15-06-1968. Based on such information, the writ petitioner had made a representation before the concerned authority for correction in his date of birth. The respondent no. 5 on 07-07- 2016, had issued two letters; one in which the writ petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he is claiming his date of birth as 15-06-1968 though in the documents with the company, his date of birth has been mentioned as 22-02-1966; and the other to the Principal of Government High School Beer Oyeara, District-Patna requesting to send the attested copy of the Admission Register of the School from where the writ petitioner had appeared for his matriculation examination. The attested document of Admission Register was sent by the Principal of the concerned School which would indicate his date of birth as 15-06-1968. The writ petitioner had also submitted his explanation to the show cause notice dated 07-07-2016. It has been stated that on 11-04-2019, the respondent no. The attested document of Admission Register was sent by the Principal of the concerned School which would indicate his date of birth as 15-06-1968. The writ petitioner had also submitted his explanation to the show cause notice dated 07-07-2016. It has been stated that on 11-04-2019, the respondent no. 5 had addressed a letter to the petitioner asking the writ petitioner to submit the original copy of the Matriculation Certificate which was responded to by the petitioner by bringing to the notice of the respondent no. 5 that he is a non-matriculate and, therefore, he is not in possession of the Matriculation Certificate. An Office Order was issued by the respondent no. 3 vide Order No. 710 dated 04-02-2020, by which the prayer for correction of the date of birth has been regretted and this order was communicated to the writ petitioner vide Letter No. 286 dated 04-03-2020. Impugning both these letters, the writ petitioner has preferred W.P.(S) No. 4274 of 2023 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 24-07-2024 against which the present appeal has been preferred. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Sourabh Arun, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that the validity of the date of birth as entered in the Admission Register has not been called into question by the respondents and only on the basis of a non-existent ground, the claim of the writ petitioner for correction in the date of birth has been regretted by the concerned respondent. The writ petitioner has repeatedly brought to the notice of the authorities that, though he had appeared for his matriculation examination in the year 1984, but he was unsuccessful and in spite of the same, the respondents have demanded particulars of the Matriculation Certificate which itself would show non-application of mind in the impugned letters to the writ application. It has been submitted that various grounds have been taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit, but none of the grounds are reflected in the impugned orders and supplementing the grounds would not restore the invalid letters. 5. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the writ petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on 17-02-1996 and he was dismissed from service vide Office Order dated 25-02-2002 on the ground of absenteeism. 5. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the writ petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground on 17-02-1996 and he was dismissed from service vide Office Order dated 25-02-2002 on the ground of absenteeism. Since the petitioner did not produce any document with respect to his age at the time of his appointment, his age was assessed by the Age Assessment Board of BCCL as 30 years on 22-02-1996 and the same date of birth was entered in Form-B register. Dr. Singh has submitted that in absence of any proof of date of birth, the entry made in the Form- B register will be the ultimate proof. The petitioner was well aware about the date of birth which had been entered in the statutory Form-B register being a signatory to such entry and, therefore, at the fag end of his service career, he cannot wheel back and claim a different date of birth which would extend his service tenure. The writ petitioner has raised the dispute after 22 years from his date of appointment and such belated claim has rightly been negated by the authorities. No claim for change in date of birth can be entertained after 10 years from the date of joining and this proposition has been advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents relying in the case of Karu Nonia v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad reported in 2002 1 JCR 418 . Reliance has also been placed in the case of G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shib Kumar Dushad & Ors. reported in AIR (2001) SC 72 and Kamta Pandey v. BCCL & Ors. reported in (2007) 03 JLJR 726 in support of the contention that once the date of birth entered in the statutory Form-B register has been accepted, the same cannot be changed at the fag end of the service career. 6. The writ petitioner/appellant was appointed on compassionate ground in the post of miner/loader on 27-05-1996. reported in (2007) 03 JLJR 726 in support of the contention that once the date of birth entered in the statutory Form-B register has been accepted, the same cannot be changed at the fag end of the service career. 6. The writ petitioner/appellant was appointed on compassionate ground in the post of miner/loader on 27-05-1996. At the time of his appointment, since the writ petitioner was a non-matriculate, he had failed to produce any document in support of his date of birth which resulted in determination of his age by the Age Assessment Board of BCCL as 30 years on 22-02-1996 which was entered in the statutory Form-B register and the writ petitioner, being a literate, had duly put his signature without any opposition to such entry. The writ petitioner after his joining, continued to work and his service career was interspersed with an order of dismissal on account of absenteeism. It is not in dispute that the other records of the company relating to the writ petitioner also contained the date of birth which had been entered in the statutory Form-B register. The writ petitioner, after putting in at least two decades of service, raised a dispute with respect to his date of birth as according to him in the Tabulation Register of the matriculation examination in which he was unsuccessful, his date of birth has been mentioned as 15-06-1968. The dispute could have been nipped at the bud, but two contradictory letters fueled the claim of the writ petitioner; one dated 7-8/07/2016 directing the writ petitioner to show cause as to why despite the entry of the date of birth in the service records as 22-06-1966, the writ petitioner is seeking for change of his date of birth to 15-06-1968, while another letter was issued on 07-07-2016 to the Principal Government High School, Beer Oyeara seeking an attested copy of the Tabulation Register. No doubt, it is true that the attested copy did mention the date of birth of the writ petitioner as 15- 06-1968 and as a follow up, the respondent no. 5 had sought for some documents interdepartmentally and the writ petitioner was directed to submit his Matriculation Certificate. Despite the representation submitted by the writ petitioner informing the respondent no. No doubt, it is true that the attested copy did mention the date of birth of the writ petitioner as 15- 06-1968 and as a follow up, the respondent no. 5 had sought for some documents interdepartmentally and the writ petitioner was directed to submit his Matriculation Certificate. Despite the representation submitted by the writ petitioner informing the respondent no. 5 that he is a non-matriculate, the Office Order dated 04-02-2020 was passed to the effect that since the writ petitioner had not submitted his Matriculation Certificate, it was not possible to reconsider his claim for change in date of birth. The Office Order issued by the respondent no. 3 speaks of sheer non-application of mind and it is to be decided as to whether on the basis of such incongruous communication, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside or not. 7. In the case of G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shib Kumar Dushad & Ors. reported in (2000) 8 SCC 696 , it has been held as follows: “17. The date of birth of an employee is not only important for the employee but for the employer also. On the length of service put in by the employee depends the quantum of retiral benefits he would be entitled to. Therefore, while determining the dispute in such matters, courts should bear in mind that a change of the date of birth long after joining service, particularly when the employee is due to retire shortly, will upset the date recorded in the service records maintained in due course of administration should not generally be accepted. In such a case the burden is heavy on the employee who comes to the court with the case that the date of birth in the service record maintained by the employer is untrue and incorrect. The burden can be discharged only by producing acceptable evidence of a clinching nature. We are constrained to make this observation as we find that in a large number of cases employees who are on the verge of retirement raise a dispute regarding correctness of the date of birth entered in the service record and the courts are inclined to pass an interim order for continuance of such employee beyond the date of superannuation on the basis of the entry of date of birth in the service record. Such a situation cannot be commended for f the reason that the court in passing such an interim order grants a relief to the employee even before determining the issue regarding correctness of the date of birth entered in the service record. Such interim orders create various complications. Anticipated vacancy for which the employee next in the line has been waiting does not materialise, on account of which the junior is denied promotion which he has all along been led to believe will be his due on the retirement of the senior. 20. From the provisions in the instructions referred to above, it is clear that in case of dispute over the date of birth of an existing employee who has neither a Matriculation Certificate/Secondary School Certificate nor a statutory certificate in which the Manager has certified the entry regarding the date of birth to be authentic the employer is to refer the matter to the Medical Board. Therefore, no fault can be found with the action taken by the appellant to refer the case of the respondent to the Medical Board. The Medical Board as laid down in the instructions is to consider the matter on the evidence available with the colliery management and in accordance with the requirement of medical jurisprudence. As noted earlier, in the present case the Medical Board determined the age of the respondent to be 52 years in 1988 and the employer (appellant) accepted such determination. In the circumstances there was hardly any scope for the High Court to interfere with the date of birth as determined by the employer (appellant herein) and issue a writ of mandamus that the date as claimed by the employee (the respondent herein) should be accepted.” 8. The respondents in their counter affidavit have resorted to various grounds as to why the claim of the writ petitioner for change in date of birth was not acceded to. These grounds, however, do not find place in the impugned orders to the writ application and attempts to supplement reasons in the said orders would not invalidate their legality. In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 , it has been held as follows: “ 8. These grounds, however, do not find place in the impugned orders to the writ application and attempts to supplement reasons in the said orders would not invalidate their legality. In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 , it has been held as follows: “ 8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16 ] : “Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.” 9. No doubt, it is true that additional reasons have been sought to be projected by the respondents denying the claim of the writ petitioner, but such reasons do not embrace a disputed question of fact. The claim made by the writ petitioner for change of his date of birth is belated which is an admitted fact and the acceptance of the date of birth, as entered in the statutory Form- B register is also stark on the face of it. Viewed in the backdrop of such admitted position when the writ petitioner does not have any justifiable claims for change in his date of birth questioning the impugned orders to the writ applicationand relegating the writ petitioner to the authorities concerned would not serve any fruitful purpose. 10. Viewed in the backdrop of such admitted position when the writ petitioner does not have any justifiable claims for change in his date of birth questioning the impugned orders to the writ applicationand relegating the writ petitioner to the authorities concerned would not serve any fruitful purpose. 10. The learned Single Judge has considered the claim of the writ petitioner and has rightly rejected such prayer based on sound reasonings. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove, do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 24-07-2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No 4274/2023 and consequently, we dismiss this appeal 11. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.