IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9826 of 2010 1. Samru Paswan S/O Late Mohan Paswan R/O Vill.- Fazilapur, P.S. Nagarnausa, Anchal Chandi, Distt.- Nalanda Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. District Magistrate, Nalanda 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa, Distt.- Nalanda 4. Superintendent Of Police, Nalanda 5. Officer-In-Charge, Nagarnausa Police Station P.S. Nagarnausa, Distt.- Nalanda 3/ 24/10/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was appointed as a Chaukidar on compassionate grounds on 5.8.1989. He superannuated from service in the year-1997 based on his date of birth as recorded in his service book. On 16.1.2002 he made a request for correction of his date of birth and then filed a writ application in the year-2005 registered as C.W.J.C. No.13147/05 disposed on 10.4.2007. It appears from the order of the Court that it could not be adequately brought to the attention of the Court that he had already superannuated in 1997. The Court passed directions for disposal of his representation for correction of date of birth. That led to an impugned order dated 21.11.2007 rejecting his claim. The petitioner then appears to have moved before the Janata Darbar of the Chief Minister when on 2 23.10.2011 he was asked to appear before a Medical Board which is stated to have assessed his age as 50 to 55 years. It is not in dispute that such medical assessment of age can be variable by 2 to 3 years both ways. The petitioner filed M.J.C. No.2733/07 questioning the order dated 21.11.2007 where this Court declined interference. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the controversy relates to the date of birth entered in the service book that itself may be called for in original for ascertainment of the correct facts. Learned counsel for the State has rightly submitted that if the petitioner acknowledges in paragraph-6 of his pleadings that he has superannuated in the year-1997, the writ application is grossly belated and an attempt to resurrect a state of affairs which is no more possible. If the petitioner superannuated in 1997 without demur, any representation filed in 2002 for correction of the date of birth was a fruitless exercise. The Court considers the matter sufficiently stale, not to warrant any interference. The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)