WP(C) 5838/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. MH Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. J Ab edin, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, appearing on behalf of res pondents. The petitioner is presently the Principal of District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), Dhubri. His date of birth is maintained in the service record as 01-10-1952; whereas his actual date of birth, according to the petitioner, is 01-02-1954. In terms of the date of birth, which stands recorded in his service book, his date of retirement is mentioned as 01-10-2012. The date of retirement , so mentioned in the service book, is, according to the petitioner, factually i ncorrect. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of th e Constitution of India, seeking issuance of appropriate directions. While considering the present writ petition, what needs to be noted is that the petitioner has not stated in his petition as to when he passed High School exami nation. On a query made by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submit s that the petitioner has passed his High School Examination and, then, became g raduate in Arts. The petitioner’s case, thus, suffers from suppression of materi al fact inasmuch as the date of birth, mentioned in the requisite certificate, o ught to be disclosed by the petitioner. When the date of birth of the petitioner already stands recorded in his High School Leaving Certification, the question of this Court’s placing reliance on certificate issued by the Headmaster of the school, where the petitioner claims to have studied, does not arise. This apart, determination of the disputed question as to whether the petitioner’s date of b irth was 01-10-1952 or 01-02-1954, would obviously require holding of roving inq uiry and would involve taking of evidence, which is neither desirable nor possib le in a proceeding of present nature under Article 226 of the Constitution of In dia. Because of what have been indicated above, this Court does not find that the pet itioner has been able to make out any case warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The w rit petition, therefore, fails and shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.