WP(C) 5476/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA The petitioner who has since retired from service on attaining the age o f superannuation as shown in the impugned letter dated 10.9.2009 is aggrieved by the said letter in which is age of superannuation was indicated as 30.9.2009. I t is on that basis the petitioner has been made to retire w.e.f. 30.9.2009. Acco rding to the petitioner his date of birth being 30.9.1952, in the normal circums tances he should have been allowed to continue in service upto 30.9.2011. In thi s connection the petitioner has placed reliance on the Annexure- A Admit Card pe rtaining to HSLC Examination 1985 in which his date of birth is shown as 30.9.19 52. Mr. P.P. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the provisional National Board Certificate shown issued on 8.8.1969 in which also his age as on 1.8.1969 has been shown as seventeen years ten months and ca lculated on that basis his date of birth comes to 30.9.1952. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit in which the aforesaid stand of the petitioner has been denied. It has been stated that at the time of enteri ng into service under the Respondent/Board, the petitioner had produced the scho ol leaving certificate in which his date of birth was recorded as 30.9.1949. How ever, later on, the said certificate was withdrawn and a copy of the aforementio ned admit card was inserted to show that the date of birth of the petitioner is 30.9.1952 and not 30.9.1949. The respondents have also contended that since the petitioner had entered into service under the Respondent/Board in 1968 he could not have placed reliance on the 1985 HSLC Examination Admit Card without the app roval of the Respondent/Board. Thus according to the respondents, it is at the i nstance of the petitioner, the records have been manipulated. In this connection Mr. Nath, learned Standing Counsel, A.S.E.B. has produced the service book (in parts) pertaining to the petitioner in which his date of birth also stands recorded. In each part of the service book on the face of it the dat e of birth of the petitioner i.e. 30.9.1952 is subsequent insertion by removi ng the earlier insertion which is apparent on the face of it. In the 1st part of the service book even the word 30-9- & is not legible. However as against th e claim of the petitioner that at the time of entering into service under the Bo ard in 1969 he had produced the aforementioned National Board Certificate dated 8.8.1969. The column indicates the recording of the date of birth on the basis o f the school leaving certificate. Whoever has done the manipulation forgot to ma nipulate the words school leaving certificate . Thus the plea of the petitione r that he had produced the National Board Certificate cannot be believed. If the date of birth of the petitioner is accepted as 30.9.1952, he at the time of entering into service under the Respondent/Board on 4.8.1969 coupled with the process that normal practice towards his appointment such as calling for applic ation, offer of candidature, interview/selection etc, the petitioner would have been under aged. Normal age for govt. job is 18 years. Thus the petitioner after gaining his service at the initial stage seeks to gain further years of service beyond the age of superannuation. The petitioner has placed reliance on the purported school leaving certificate w hich shows his date of birth as 30.9.1952. Interestingly, although the petitione r already entered into service under the Respondent/Board in 1969 but in the sai d certificate he is shown to have left the school on 31.10.1984 with the recordi ng of his date of birth as 30.9.1952. In the counter affidavit filed by the Resp ondent/Board it has been specifically stated that if the petitioner had appeared in the HSLC Examination of 1985 same was without the permission of the Responde nt/Board. The said certificate is dated 12.9.2009 coinciding with the month and year of retirement of the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner cannot claim few more years of service on the basis of apparent m anipulation in the service record. Needless to say that in case of any alteratio n in the date of birth, same will have to be authenticated by the concerned auth ority as per the requirement of the provision of law applicable in this regard. Above being the position, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and I see n o reason to allow the petitioner to continue in service and then to go on retire ment with effect from 30.9.2012 which is the claim in the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.