JUDGMENT :

G.S. Ahluwalia, J.

Heard on the question of admission.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief(s):-

“(a) That the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously.

(b) The respondent no. 4-5 be directed to consider the letter dated 21-1-2002 and correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the official records and permit to continue the petitioner on the said post.

(c) Any other relief which deem fit with the facts or circumstances be granted in the favour of the petitioner.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner, that after the death of her husband, she was granted appointment on compassionate ground and her date of birth was mentioned as 12-6-1959. Thereafter, in the year 2002, she was directed to appear before the Medical Board, who opined that the petitioner appears to be of 40 years. However, by order dated 2-1-2021, it has been observed that the petitioner shall stand retired w.e.f. 30-6-2021 after attaining the age of superannuation. It is submitted that it appears that on the basis of the opinion of the Medical Board, the age of the petitioner was not rectified in the service book.

3. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the Counsel for the State. It is submitted that so far as the certificate issued by the Medical Board is concerned, it is clear from the said Board that the Doctor had given an opinion without conducting any test. Further, it is well established principle of law that the petition in regard to date of birth cannot be entertained at the fag end of the service. In the present case, the petition has been filed after the superannuation of the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and another vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble and others , (2010) 14 SCC 423 has held as under:-

“12. Apart from the notification and the said instruction this Court in a series of cases has categorically laid down that the employees should not be permitted to change the date of birth at the fag end of their service career. In the instant case the application of alteration has been filed at the fag end of his service career after a lapse of twenty-eight years.

13. In Union of India vs. Harnam Singh , (1993) 2 SCC 162 = 1993 SCC (L&S) 375 = (1993) 24 ATC 92, this Court was confronted with almost similar facts. The Court laid down as under: (SCC pp. 172-73, para 15)

“15. In the instant case, the date of birth recorded at the time of entry of the respondent into service as 20-5-1934 had continued to exist, unchallenged between 1956 and September 1991, for almost three and a half decades. The respondent had the occasion to see his service book on numerous occasions. He signed the service book at different places at different points of time. Never did he object to the recorded entry. The same date of birth was also reflected in the seniority lists of LDC and UDC, which the respondent had admittedly seen, as there is nothing on the record to show that he had no occasion to see the same. He remained silent and did not seek the alteration of the date of birth till September 1991, just a few months prior to the date of his superannuation. Inordinate and unexplained delay or laches on the part of the respondent to seek the necessary correction would in any case have justified the refusal of relief to him. Even if the respondent had sought correction of the date of birth within five years after 1979, the earlier delay would not have non-suited him but he did not seek correction of the date of