LNR, J.

This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.21218 of 2013. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, through order, dated 28.02.2014.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition.

The petitioner joined the service of the respondents-company on 26.02.1978 as Badli Coal Filler and was promoted as Coal Filler on 01.07.1979. He has also earned further promotions, the latest being the one of A-Grade Senior Mining Sirdar in the year 2006. The Age of retirement in the 1st respondent-company for the employees of that category is 60 years. The age of the petitioner was mentioned as 24 years, when he joined service, thereby the year of birth would be 1954. At a later point of time, the petitioner submitted certain certificates, which reflected date of birth as 13.08.1957. It is also stated that the petitioner appeared in the examinations conducted under the provisions of the Mines Act and in all of them, the date of birth was mentioned as 13.08.1957.

The respondents proposed to retire the petitioner with effect from 28.02.2014, on attaining the age of superannuation on the basis of the date of birth/age mentioned in the service records. Accordingly a notice was issued on 01.02.2013. The petitioner challenged the said notice.

The petitioner contended that once the date of birth is mentioned in the certificates issued by the educational institutions and entered in some of the records, it is not open to the respondents to ignore that date and to retire him on the basis of the age, which is said to have been mentioned, when he joined service. Reliance is placed upon certain decided cases.

The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. It was stated that the petitioner did not submit any certificates in proof of his age and as provided for under the relevant Service Regulations, his age was estimated by the Medical Officer and the same was mentioned in the service records. It was further stated that the particulars mentioned in the Mining Certificate do not have any bearing upon the service conditions and that none of the educational certificates produced by the petitioner has any authenticity. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition through order, dated 28.02.2014.

Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner underwent studies by the time he joined the service of the 1st respondent-company and instead of entering the date of birth as reflected in the certificates, the age, said to be on the basis of rough estimation was entered. He contends that whatever may have been the circumstances under which the age was entered, once adequate proof about the date of birth has been placed before them, the respondents ought to have taken the same into account. He submits that the mining certificate issued under the Mines Act has its own significance and the respondents cannot ignore it. He contends that the learned Single Judge ought to have granted relief to the petitioner.

Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that it is only when a candidate expresses his inability to submit any proof of date of birth, that his age would be entered on the basis of the estimation by the Medical Officer and the same course of action was adopted in the case of the petitioner. He further submits that the so-called certificates said to have been issued by the educational institutions do not have any authenticity and the learned Judge has taken correct view of the matter.

The date of birth of an employee, as entered in the service records, while he joined the service, has its own significance. For all practical purposes, it is required to remain the same. It is only when unrebuttable proof is placed contrary to it, that there exists a possibility for altering it. that too in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

In the instant case, the post against which the pe