ORDER

1. By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 3.2.2021 (Annexure-P/2) whereby the petitioner is shown to be retired on attaining the age of 62 years; the said order also contains the date of birth of the employees retiring within a period of 24 months.

2. In the order dated 3.2.2021, name of the petitioner is shown at Sr.No.33 and his date of birth is shown as 1.5.1962, which has been taken from the date of birth recorded in service book.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the mark-sheets of 5th and 10th class and also in his Aadhar Card and PAN Card, the correct date of birth is shown as 15.08.1962. As per the petitioner, on 25.10.2022, he represented the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Shahdol; his representation is available on record as Annexure-P/3. Thereafter, is case was recommended by the Superintendent of Police to the Finance Officer, Police Headquarters, Bhopal. The Finance Officer further returned the matter to the Superintendent of Police saying that the date of birth recorded in the service book cannot be changed unless there is an order of the Court because as per the circular dated 23.08.1996 of the Finance Department, if there is no manipulation in the date of birth in service book, the same can be changed only by virtue of order of the Court and that proposal is sent to the Administration department.

4. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner has raised doubt about his recorded date of birth in the service book and officers of the Department have also opined that there is no foundation available in the service book as to on what basis, the date of birth in service book is recorded as 1.5.1962, therefore, they advised that sanction be granted for correction in date of birth in service book of the petitioner. But, in my opinion, the request made by the petitioner cannot be considered because the date of birth recorded in the service book can be corrected only on an objection raised within a period of six months from the date of recording the same as per Rule-85 of the Madhya Pradesh Financial Code, which provides that the date of birth recorded in the service record shall be treated to be final and once it is recorded, only in case of clerical error, when any manipulation is found, the same can be corrected. The law is also settled on this issue that at the verge of retirement, there cannot be any change in service record unless an objection is raised with regard to correction of date of birth at the relevant point of time. Dealing with the same issue, the Supreme Court in the case of State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan reported in (1994) 6 SCC 302, has observed as under:-

"7. As held by this Court in Harnam case [(1993) 2 SCC 162], rule 49 is to be harmoniously interpreted. The application for correction of the date of birth of an in-service employee should be made within five years from the date when the rules had come into force, i.e. 1961. If no application is made, after expiry of five years, the government employee loses his right to make an application for correction of his date of birth. It is seen that the respondent entered into the service on 12.1.1952, and only when he was due for superannuation at the age of 58 years on 31.8.1991, he made the application exactly one year before his superannuation. The Government rejected his claim before he attained the age ofsuperannuation on 30.8. 1991. When questioned, the Tribunal, for incorrect reasons, set aside the order and remitted the matter for reconsideration. The Government considered various facts and circumstances in the GOMs No.271 and rejected the claim on 31.3.1993. The evidence is not unimpeachable or irrefutable. The Tribunal in its judicial review is not justified in trenching into the field of appreciation of evidence and circu