JUDGMENT :

By filing this writ application, the petitioner has prayed to quash the order dated 23/27.02.2021 (Annexure-12) by which his application for correction of his date of birth in the service records including Form-B was rejected. Further prayer has been made to allow the petitioner to continue in service till April, 2025 on the basis of date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate. Further prayer has been made to correct his date of birth as 6.4.1965 in place of 25 years as on 5.11.1986 as recorded in his service records.

2. The petitioner has passed his matriculation from Bihar School Education Board in the year 1991. The matriculation certificate was issued in August, 1981 recording his date of birth as 6th April, 1965. The petitioner was appointed as Miner Loader by the respondents on 3.11.1986 and he was regularized on 12.8.1987. The Form-B register, which is a statutory register, was opened wherein his age was recorded as 25 years as on that date. It is the case of the petitioner that he objected such recording by filing an application on 19.8.87. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as General Mazdoor Category-I considering his educational qualification which was duly verified.

Subsequent promotion was granted to different post considering his matriculation certificate but surprisingly his date of birth was not corrected. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has objected the recording of his date of birth but the same was not considered in terms of the regulation of the company. As per the petitioner since he was promoted to different post considering his educational qualification, his date of birth which was recorded therein should have been accepted to be the correct date of birth and the impugned order dated 23/27.2.2021 could not have been passed.

3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that there was no minimum educational qualification requirement when the petitioner entered in service as Miner Loader, thus the petitioner never produced his matriculation certificate at the time of his entry into service. He was thus subjected to medical test for assessment of age which the petitioner accepted and his age was assessed as 25 years as on 4.11.1986. The statutory Form-B register suggests that the petitioner accepted the aforesaid recording as he has put his signature by way of acknowledgement on the same. As per the counsel for the respondent if the petitioner had any objection with respect to the entry of date of birth he should have objected then only, but he failed to do. Challenging his date of birth and praying for correction when he has already superannuated in the month of November, 2021 does not help the petitioner. It is well settled principle of law that the dispute with respect to the date of birth cannot be raised at the fag end of his service career.

4. I have heard the parties.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Premlal Shrivas, [(2011) 9 SCC 664], has been pleased to hold that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. Paragraph-8 of the said judgment is being reproduced as under:

“8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim