ORDER :

1. The correction of date of birth is what is the relief sought for by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.

2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the present writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer under the respondents Water Resources Department in the year 1982. The petitioner at the time of filing of the writ petition was discharging the duties that of a Superintendent Engineer. The petitioner claims to have come to know about his actual date of birth to be 16.11.1960 on the basis of Annexure P/3, birth certificate that was issued from the office of Registrar Birth and Death. The certificate is dated 06.08.1992.

3. From the perusal of records and there is an admission by the counsel for the petitioner himself that the entire educational records of the petitioner reflects the date of birth of the petitioner to be 30.12.1959 which includes the higher secondary certificate issued in favour of the petitioner from the competent Board of Secondary Education. There has been no efforts made by the petitioner for getting the date of birth in the school records corrected at any point of time. The school certificates still reflects the date of birth as 30.12.1959.

4. The issue of date of birth has now been finalized and laid to rest by catena of decisions laid down by the Supreme Court whereby it has been time and again reiterated that the school records for all practical purposes particularly the certificate issued from the Board of Secondary Education or for that matter Higher Secondary School Certificate has to be accepted as most authentic document. In the instant case also the school records admittedly reflects the date of birth of the petitioner to be 30.12.1959.

5. From the documents also it reflects that for the first time the petitioner had approached the employer for necessary correction of his date of birth in the service records on 12.11.2002. This again is after about 20 years of coming in service, which otherwise means that during these 20 years time the petitioner did not have any grievance as regards the date of birth reflected in his service records.

6. Another fact which needs consideration is that the document on the basis of which the petitioner seeks correction of his date of birth is Annexure P/3. The said certificate was issued somewhere in the year, 1992 even then the petitioner did not take any steps for getting the date of birth in his educational records to be corrected or rectified and by efflux of time the date of birth as is reflected in his educational records have attained finality.

7. In view of the same, the claim of the petitioner for correction of date of birth as this fag end of his service career would not otherwise be permissible, nor has the petitioner made out any strong case with clinching materials to hold that the date of birth in the service records as also in the educational records to be incorrect or bad in law.

8. The Supreme Court very recently in Civil Appeal No.5720 of 2021, decided on 21.09.2021 in case of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd. Vs. T.P. Nataraja & Others, discussing the law on the issue of date of birth elaborately in paragraphs 9.1 to 10 has held as under:

9.1 In the case of Home Department Vs. R. Kirubakaran (Supra), it is observed and held as under:

"7. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. 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 thei