WP(C) 5243/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A K GOSWAMI By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petition er has put to challenge the order dated 11.07.2011 (Annexure-H) to the writ peti tion issued by the Commissioner, Gauhati Municipal Corporation, Guwahati, where by the petitioner’s request for correction of age and change of date of birth t o 31.10.1950 was not found acceptable and accordingly, rejected. The petitioner approached this Court earlier by means of another writ application which was registered as WP (C) No.48 of 2002 and this Court by an or der dated 27.02.2007, directed the Commissioner, GMC to examine the petitioner’s claim of his date of birth to be 31.10.1950 and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of th e certified copy of the order. It was pursuant to this order of this court that the present order under challenge was passed by the Commissioner, GMC. The facts, in short, necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner’s age was recorded in the certificate issued by the Headmast er of Government Aided Barbhag Kalag High School, Nalbari as 18(eighteen) years 2(two) months as on 31.12.1968 and accordingly, his date of birth would be 31.10 .1950. The petitioner had also completed 3 years Normal Course from the Governme nt Normal School in the year 1969. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Tea cher in Manik Chandra Barooah High School against a training vacancy in the year 1971 and such service was regularised in the year 1972. In the year 1975, his s ervice as Assistant Teacher was confirmed. It is stated that the petitioner bec ame aware about the wrong recording of date of birth in the service book for the first time in the year 1995 as 31.03.1944 instead of original date of 31.10.195 0. Coming to know about the aforesaid discrepancies in the service book, the pet itioner had submitted representation on 10.04.1995 and eventually, there being n o response from the authorities, as alluded hereinbefore, in the Writ petition ( C ) No. 48 of 2002 was filed before this Court. I have heard Ms. R Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and M r. S Bora, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the GMC. I have also perused t he records including the Service Book made available by Mr. Bora. Ms. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the res pondent No.2 was not correct in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for corre ction of age and date of birth and that the Commissioner had passed such an orde r without considering the materials on record. With reference to the certificate dated 14.08.1969 ( Annexure-A), the learned counsel submits that a bare perusa l of the aforesaid certificate leaves no room for doubt that the date of birth o f the petitioner is 31.10.1950 and as such, it is palpably wrong to record the date of birth of the petitioner in the Service Book as 31.03.1944 and it is on t he basis of such wrong entry in the Service Book that the petitioner was made t o retire on 31.03.2002. Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner, after joining service as an Assistant Teacher way back in the year 1971, had, for the first time questioned the recording of date of birth in the Service Book only on 10.04.1995. Apart from that, the claim mad e by the petitioner himself is contradictory in as much as the document relied o n by the petitioner at Annexure-B, which is a certificate issued by the Princip al of Government Normal School, would go to show that the date of birth of the p etitioner is 1.10.1945. He has also submitted that the plea that the petitioner came to know for the first time only in the year 1995 that there was wrong reco rding of date of birth in the Service Book is not believable in view of the fac t that the petitioner had put his signature in the Service Book. In view of the aforesaid materials, the learned counsel submits that the respondent No.2 was pe rfectly justified in not accepting the prayer made by the petitioner for changin g his date of birth to 31.10.1950 at much a belated stage. A perusal of the Service Book would indicate that it is correct as has been contended by Mr. Bora that the petitioner had signed in the Servic e Book and the date of birth was recorded as 31.03.1944. The Commissioner , GMC had also signed on the said service book on 10.04.1974. In the writ petition, th e petitoner had not come out with any explanation with regard to the aforesaid revelations. The certificate on which much reliance has been placed by Ms. Devi would also disclose that the petitioner was not a regular student of that Schoo l and the petitioner had appeared in the HSLC test examination as a private cand idate. It is also not understood what was the occasion to indicate in the said c ertificate the age of the petitioner with reference to the last day of the year i.e. on 31.12.1968 when the petitioner had taken the test examination in the ye ar 1968. This Court also cannot ignore the certificate issued by the Principal o f the Normal School. The aforesaid certificate demonstrates that the date of bir th of the petitioner is 01.10.1945. The petitioner has not questioned the record ing of such age in the writ petition to be one as wrongly recorded. In the factu al matrix of the case, when the petitioner had made the claim for change of date of birth after about 24 years of service, in absence of any unimpeachable mat erials on record to demonstrate with certainty that the date of birth of the pet itioner is, in fact, 31.10.1950, as contended by the petitioner, it cannot be sa id that the respondent No.2 was wrong in not accepting the plea for change of da te of birth. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.