( 1 ) TWO writ petitions have been decided by a learned Single judge of this Court being W. P. Nos. 16123 and 16478 of 2003. Both these writ petitions have been dismissed. This writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner in W. P. No. 16123 of 2003.

( 2 ) THE controversy is in a short compass. The management retired the writ petitioner on 31. 7. 2003 on the basis of date of birth fixed by them instead of the date of birth recorded in the service register. She was appointed as sweeper and later she was promoted as Peon (attender) on 1. 11. 1981. The writ petitioner stated that at the time of entering into service, she submitted proof of her date of birth i. e. , a certificate issued by Sarpanch of Gram panchayat, Chinna Chinthakunta, Taluk narsapur and her date of birth was recorded in the service register as 16. 5. 1950. According to her, she was also sent to government Hospital, Nampally, Hyderabad and doctor issued a certificate on 18. 11. 1987 showing her age to be 37 years. The certificate issued by the Sarpanch of Gram panchayat, Chinna Chinthakunta, Taluk narsapur appears to have been accepted by the respondents which says:"it is certified that P. Pochamma d/o anjaiah was born on 16. 5. 1950 in Chinna chinthakunta Village, Taluk Narsapur, Medak district and the said certificate is issued on 10. 11. 1983. The date of birth of P. Pochamma on 16. 5. 1950. "

( 3 ) THE writ petitioner also produced a copy of certificate issued by a doctor which shows that she was 37 years old as on 18. 11. 1987. The petitioner submits that in spite of her date of birth having been recorded as 16. 5. 1950 in the service register, she was served with an order of retirement on 2. 1. 2003 informing her that she would be retiring on 31. 7. 2003. Thereafter she filed the writ petition on 31. 7. 2003.

( 4 ) 3rd respondent stated in her counter-affidavit that the petitioner was appointed as a sweeper on 1. 12. 1980 on temporary basis. Later she was appointed as a Peon on 1. 11. 1981. It is stated that in her application the petitioner had not produced any documentary evidence relating to her age. Later she produced a certificate issued by Sarpanch, Gram panchayat Chinna Chinthakunta Village showing her date of birth as 16. 5. 1950 and it was accordingly entered in the service register. It is also contended that on a routine perusal of the records of the employees, it was found that some employees had not given proof of their date of birth. Therefore a memo was issued on 11. 11. 1987 to 27 employees including the petitioner directing them to produce age certificate from Civil surgeon, Government Hospital, Nampally. The petitioner produced a certificate dated 18. 11. 1987.

( 5 ) THE certificate issued by Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chinna Chinthakunta, taluk Narsapur and another certificate issued by Civil Surgeon, Government hospital, Nampally are admitted even by the respondents, but they contend that the certificate issued by the doctor on 18. 11. 1987 was based on the statement of the petitioner and as per her appearance and no scientific tests have been conducted. Then in 1993 the management took a decision to send all class IV employees for forensic examination so that their date of birth is established. A certificate was issued by Dr. A/. Nayaran Riddy, Professor of porensic Medicine, on 13. 5. 1993, who certified that the petitioner was 50 years as on the date of examination, therefore her date of birth was taken to be 50 years old at the time of examination and consequently she was retired.

( 6 ) THE learned Single Judge considered the arguments of the parties and dismissed the writ petition. Law is settled that once a date of birth is entered in the service register and accepted by the parties i. e. , the employer and the employee, it cannot be changed unilaterally without an unimpeachable evidence to show that the date of birth so entered in the service register is incorrect. That would contemplate that if an employer wants to