1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present writ petition has been preferred for the reasons that the respondents have superannuated the present petitioner wrongly on 29th February, 2008, on an assumption that the date of birth of the present petitioner is 20th February, 1950, but, in fact, the correct date of birth of the present petitioner is 20th February, 1953 and, therefore, the present petitioner ought to have been superannuated on 29th February, 2011 and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred, seeking a writ of mandamus upon the respondents to rectify the date of birth of the petitioner as 20th February, 1953, instead of th February, 1950 and, accordingly, the petitioner be reinstated into service as his date of retirement is 29th February, 2011.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that initially when the petitioner joined respondent no.1-Corporation, an affidavit of a correct date of birth was filed by the present petitioner, which was also accepted by the respondents and, thus, it creates an estoppel on the part of the respondents. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an error in the School Register and, therefore, in the certificate of Higher Secondary Examination, issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, the date of birth of the petitioner is given as 20th February, 1950. Thus, the School Register is also wrong and consequently, the certificate, issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, is also revealing wrong date of birth and, therefore, the petitioner must be allowed to continue his services with the respondents up to 29th February, 2011.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has vehemently submitted that the correct date of birth of the present petitioner is 20th February, 1950 and, therefore, he has rightly been superannuated on 29th February, 2008. With the counter affidavit, the certificate, issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, is also annexed, which reveals the correct date of birth of the present petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that even Annexure-D to the counter affidavit, which is a nomination and declaration form under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Employees’ Pension Scheme, reveals the date of birth of the present petitioner as 20th February, 1950. Likewise, there are several other evidences, annexed with the counter affidavit, which reveal that the correct date of birth of the present petitioner is 20th February, 1950 and no error has been committed by the respondents in superannuating the present petitioner on 29th February, 2008. Even otherwise also, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner on a last day of his services i.e. on 29th February, 2008. Thus, at the fag end of his service career the petitioner has filed the present petition for change of date of birth, which is not tenable, at law, and, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition for the following facts and reasons:

(i) The petitioner joined the services of the respondent-Corporation on 14th June, 1976 as Sales Boy. Thereafter, though the petitioner was knowing the date of birth, recorded by the respondents, as 20th February, 1950, no steps was taken by the present petitioner for correction of his date of birth;

(ii) A document, annexed with the counter affidavit at Annexure-C, which is a certificate of Higher Secondary Examination, issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, also reveals the name of the present petitioner as well as the date of birth of the present petitioner as 20th February, 1950. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this certificate was supplied by the petitioner to the Corporation. T