WP(C) 201/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA.. Heard Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner as w ell as Ms R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. I have also heard Mr . C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel representing the Respondent No.7. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the allege d pre-mature retirement from service as notified by Annexure-2 order dated 30.7. 2009. As per the said impugned letter, the petitioner will go on retirement on attaining the age of 60 years on 31.1.2011. According to the petitioner, as per the Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate, 1969 dated 1.6.1969, his date of birth being 23.1.1952, he could no t have been made to retire w.e.f. 31.1.2011 and that he is required to continue in service till 31.1.2012. In the certificate enclosed to the writ petition, th e age of the petitioner stands recorded as 17 years 1 month 8 days as on 1st Mar ch, 1969. The petitioner entered into the services of the respondents by declari ng his date of birth as 23.1.1951. As a token of acceptance of the said date of birth, the petitioner also put his signature/thumb impression. Not only that, e ven in the year 2000, he declared his date of birth as 23.1.1951 in the Verifica tion Roll, which was duly signed by him with his thumb impression. Significantly , in the said Verification Roll, he identified his HSSLC certificate to be of 19 68 unlike the writ petition, in which, he has enclosed the HSSLC certificate of 1969. According to the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, under whom the petitioner has been serving had corrected the date of birth in the Ser vice Book, in terms of which he is required to be continued with service till 31 .1.2012. Ms R. Chakraborty, learned State counsel has produced the records referr ed to above, on perusal of which what is seen is that there is no correction as such in the recorded date of birth but an observation has been made by the Super intendent of Police that as per the HSSLC certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner is 23.1.1952. As recorded in the order dated 11.1.2011 and as has al so been contended by the respondents in the parawise comments, as per the provis ions of FR 8(c), it is the Commissioner and Heads of the Department, who alone a re competent to alter the recorded date of birth in case of non-gazetted Governm ent servants, provided that they are satisfied after enquiry that the previous d ate of birth was incorrect. Further, as per SR 8, no alteration of date of birt h of a Government servant should be allowed except in very rare cases and that t oo, within three years of the date of his actual superannuation. Time and again, the Apex Court in its various decisions has reiterated t hat no alteration of the date of birth should be allowed and at the fag end of s ervice career. In this case, the petitioner entered into services of the respond ents in the year 1976 and in all these years, he never agitated the alleged wron g recording of date of birth and now, the instant writ petition has been filed, just at the eve of retirement from service on attaining the age of 60 years. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petit ion and accordingly, it is dismissed.