JUDGMENT :

H. S. THANGKHIEW, J.

1. The petitioner by way of the instant writ petition, has put to challenge an order dated 22.11.2021, whereby a request for correction of his date of birth, in his service record from 12.04.1965 to 18.01.1969, has been rejected by the respondent No. 3 (Superintendent of Police, West Garo Hills).

2. The case of the petitioner is that, he had joined service on 01.07.1987, as a Fireman and came to learn about the incorrect entry as to his date of birth, only on 12.08.2020, which he maintains should have been recorded in his service book as 18.01.1969, instead of 12.04.1965. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted a written application for change in the date of birth along with supporting documents, namely Birth Certificate issued on 25.03.2021, an affidavit dated 31.08.2021, and his High School Leaving Certificate Admit Card, in support of his claim. His request however, was rejected by the impugned order, hence the instant writ petition.

3. Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the rejection of the request of the petitioner is unjustified, inasmuch as, the petitioner has produced irrefutable evidence to show that, his date of birth is 18.01.1969, and not 12.04.1965, as recorded in his service book. The only lapse on the part of the petitioner, he submits, is that the request for correction of his date of birth was made at the fag end of his career, and not within 3 (three) years from the date of superannuation, as prescribed by SR 8 of the Meghalaya Fundamental and Subsidiary Rules , 1984. It is submitted that, this lapse occurred due to the advent of the COVID epidemic, which prevented the petitioner from approaching the respondents within the time as prescribed. It is also submitted that, the Identity Card of the petitioner shows his correct date of birth, and that he came to learn about the discrepancy only when he received his GPF statements for the year 2019-2020.

4. The learned counsel has strenuously argued that, the case of the petitioner falls under exceptional circumstances, and due consideration should have been accorded by the respondents, while considering his prayer. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Premlal Shrivas reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664, and submits that, in exceptional cases, such as the case of the petitioner, change in the date of birth in the service record, on the production of irrefutable evidence is permitted.

5. Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih, learned GA on behalf of the State respondents has strongly refuted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and has placed reliance on the affidavit filed by the respondents. The learned GA has drawn the attention of this Court to the service sheet of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment, wherein the date of birth is recorded as 12.04.1965, which has also been signed and thumb imprinted by the petitioner. With regard to the statement that, the writ petitioner only came to learn about the date of birth from his GPF Account statement on 12.08.2020, she submits that the same cannot be accepted, as the GPF Account statements are issued annually by the Office of The Principal Accountant General, Meghalaya, Shillong, to the petitioner. The learned GA has also referred to the fact that, the petitioner had submitted Form No. 17 on 16.05.2002, which deals with the details of an employee’s family, wherein he had entered his date of birth as 12.04.1965, which was signed by him, countersigned by the Head of the Office, and placed in the service book.

6. The learned