JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. C. Lalramzuava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Stephen Lalbuatsaiha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to change his date of birth from 15.05.1965 as written in his service book to 01.04.1967 as per his Matriculation Certificate. [2.] Brief facts of the case essential for disposal of the instant case is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Jailor on 28.01.1991 on officiating basis and later on was regularized in service. He was thereafter promoted to the post of Jailor and presently, he is serving as Superintendent of Jail. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of entering into service, his date of birth was wrongly entered as 15.05.1965 in his service book. The same was not to his knowledge for a long time but when he was posted in District Jail at Saiha in the year 1992. He came to learn about the wrong entry and accordingly, he submitted his representation before the Inspector General of Prisons on 15.04.1995 through the Superintendent, District Jail, Saiha. However, his application was not forwarded by the Superintendent of District Jail, Saiha. Thereafter, based on the Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2014 (Annexure - 14), the petitioner submitted his second representation before the Inspector General of Prisons requesting for alteration of his date of birth as per his Matriculation Certificate. The representation was forwarded by the petitioner himself to the Inspector General of Prisons on 28.01.2014 and the latter forwarded the same to the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Home Department on 25.02.2014. [3.] In response to the same, the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Home Department wrote back to the I.G Prisons stating that the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (General Service Wing), hereinafter referred to as DP&AR (GSW) regretted the alteration of the date of birth of the petitioner vide their I.D dated 24.03.2014. The said communication was made on 02.04.2014. Thereafter, the I.G, Prisons once again wrote to the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Home Department on 23.01.2024 requesting the alteration of date of birth of the petitioner as per his Matriculation Certificate. The said communication was made on 02.04.2014. Thereafter, the I.G, Prisons once again wrote to the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Home Department on 23.01.2024 requesting the alteration of date of birth of the petitioner as per his Matriculation Certificate. In response to the same, the earlier representation submitted by the petitioner and the action taken in that regard was asked to be submitted to the Home Department vide Communication dated 05.03.2024 written by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Home Department to the I.G, Prisons. Thereafter, vide Communication dated 05.06.2024, the proposal for alteration of the date of birth of the petitioner was rejected and conveyed to the I.G, Prisons as well as the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court. [4.] Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel submits that the date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly entered in his service book and the petitioner was not aware of this fact. After he was posted in the District Jail, Saiha in the year 1992, the petitioner came to learn about the same and he submitted his representation to the Superintendent, District Jail, Saiha on 15.04.1995 requesting alteration of his date of birth as per his Matriculation Certificate. However, the said authority summarily rejected the representation on the ground that it was against the Government order and did not forward the said representation to the higher authority. [5.] The learned Senior Counsel submits that on 07.01.2014, an Office Memorandum was issued by the DP&AR (GSW) instructing Controlling Officers of the Departments to submit the proposal for alteration of date of birth in the service book within two (2) months from the date of issuance of the Office Memorandum. The petitioner accordingly submitted his second representation to the I.G, Prisons on 28.01.2014 while mentioning the fact that he had earlier submitted his representation which was not forwarded by the Superintendent, District Jail, Saiha. Despite the said representation and the endorsement given by the I.G, Prisons, the prayer for alteration of his date of birth was rejected by the DP&AR (GSW) on 24.03.2014 and 03.06.2024 which was communicated to the I.G, Prisons as well as the petitioner vide letters dated 02.04.2015 and 05.06.2024 respectively. Despite the said representation and the endorsement given by the I.G, Prisons, the prayer for alteration of his date of birth was rejected by the DP&AR (GSW) on 24.03.2014 and 03.06.2024 which was communicated to the I.G, Prisons as well as the petitioner vide letters dated 02.04.2015 and 05.06.2024 respectively. [6.] The learned Senior Counsel submits that considering the fact that the petitioner had submitted his first representation on 15.04.1995, the same being within the period of five (5) years from the date of entry into service, the date of birth of the petitioner ought to have been corrected by the respondent authorities in terms of Note – 6 below F.R – 56. He submits that failure on the part of the Superintendent, District Jail, Saiha to forward the representation submitted by the petitioner before the authority concerned cannot be the ground to reject the case of the petitioner for altering his date of birth as per his Matriculation Certificate, which is also not disputed by the respondent authorities. He therefore submits that considering the fact that the first representation was submitted on 15.04.1995, the application of the petitioner for alteration of his date of birth should be considered to have been submitted on time. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel relies upon the case of Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh (1993) 2 SCC 162 . [7.] The learned Senior Counsel also submits that although the State respondents have contended in their affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner himself has accepted his date of birth as 15.05.1965 in his Declaration of Family Details, the fact remains that unless the date of birth of the petitioner is altered, as prayed for by him, the petitioner cannot but enter the date of birth as was entered in his service book. Therefore, it is not a case that the petitioner has accepted 15.05.1965 as his date of birth. The learned Senior Counsel thus submits that under the facts and circumstances, the respondent authorities may be directed to alter the date of birth of the petitioner in terms of his Matriculation Certificate. [8.] Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Govt. Advocate on the other hand submits that the first representation said to have been submitted by the petitioner on 15.04.1995 has not be received by the respondents or by the sub-ordinate officers working under them and therefore, there is no record of its existence. [8.] Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Govt. Advocate on the other hand submits that the first representation said to have been submitted by the petitioner on 15.04.1995 has not be received by the respondents or by the sub-ordinate officers working under them and therefore, there is no record of its existence. Moreover, there is no official seal in the said application with date of receipt and signature, which only casts serious doubt about its existence. She therefore submits that the respondents seriously dispute about the existence of the said representation. [9.] The learned Govt. Advocate submits that entries were made in the service book of petitioner wherein, his date of birth was indicated as 15.05.1965 both in figures as well as in words and the petitioner had duly subscribed his signature in acceptance of the entries on 15.02.1991. She further submits that the provisional seniority list of Jailor was issued vide order dated 23.04.2013 clearly indicating the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.05.1965 and a copy of the provisional seniority list was circulated to the persons concerned including the petitioner. It is therefore clear that the petitioner is aware of the entries made in his service book and the subsequent document such as the provisional seniority list. Despite the same, the petitioner apart from claiming to have submitted his first representation on 15.04.1995 had not taken any steps until he submitted his representation belatedly on 28.01.2014. Such being the case, the belated claim for alteration of his date of birth at the fag end of his service career cannot be accepted by the respondent authorities keeping in view the provisions provided under Note – 6 below F.R – 56. The learned Govt. Advocate thus submits that the writ petition has no merit and the same should be dismissed. [10.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and I have perused the materials available on record. Although 15.05.1965 has been entered as the date of birth of the petitioner in his service book, the petitioner claims that his actual date of birth is 01.04.1967. [11.] According to the petitioner, he had submitted his representation for alteration of his date of birth way back on 15.04.1995, but the same was not acted upon or forwarded to the respondents authority concerned. [11.] According to the petitioner, he had submitted his representation for alteration of his date of birth way back on 15.04.1995, but the same was not acted upon or forwarded to the respondents authority concerned. It is noticed that the petitioner on one hand submits that the representation was not forwarded to the I.G., Prisons by the Superintendent, District Jail, Saiha and on the other hand submits that the Superintendent rejected the claim for alteration of his date of birth as per Government order as per his second representation dated 28.01.2014. Whatever the case may be, the fact remains that the representation dated 15.04.1995 is denied to have been received by the respondent authorities. They also contend that there is no indication of the application having been received by any authority with official seal, date of receipt and signature etc. and that the said application is nowhere available in their record. Under the circumstance, in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot adjudicate upon such disputed questions of fact. In other words, it cannot be determined as to whether the petitioner had actually submitted his first representation on 15.04.1995. [12.] Further, presuming that the petitioner had submitted his representation on 15.04.1995 and that the same was not acted upon by the respondent authorities, the question which still remains to be answered is as to what prevented him from pursuing the matter further by submitting a fresh representation or from taking recourse to a legal remedy. The petitioner thereafter only on 28.01.2014 submitted another representation for alteration of his date of birth before the I.G, Prisons purportedly taking each of the Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2014 issued by the DP&AR (GSW). The said Office Memorandum is only a reminder to the Controlling Officers of various departments to submit proposal for alteration/correction of date of birth of Government Servant recorded in their service book within a period of two (2) month from the date of Office Memorandum. The said Office Memorandum is only a reminder for timely submission of proposals for alteration of date of birth in the service book of Government Servant and cannot be considered to have an overriding effect to Note - 6 below F.R - 56. The said Office Memorandum is only a reminder for timely submission of proposals for alteration of date of birth in the service book of Government Servant and cannot be considered to have an overriding effect to Note - 6 below F.R - 56. In other words, all such proposals that are submitted for alteration of date of birth to the Nodal Department will have to be considered in terms of the guidelines and instructions contained in Note - 6 below F.R - 56. [13.] As already noticed, the petitioner has failed to establish the fact that he had indeed submitted his representation within time in so far as a Writ Court is concerned. Further, a perusal of the service book of the petitioner goes to show that there is no overwriting in his date of birth which is written in both figures and in words. The petitioner as a token of acceptance of the particulars entered in the service book had duly given his signature on 15.02.1991. [14.] Having regard to the conditions set out in Note - 6 below F.R - 56 and also in view of the findings arrived at herein above, the petitioner in the considered view of this Court has not made out a case for alteration of his date of birth and particularly at this belated stage. The authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh (Supra) also does not support his case. [15.] In the result, this Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No cost.