IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22392 of 2011 RAM BILAS PASWAN S/O LATE SARYUG PASWAN R/O VILLAGE TILAK TAJPUR, P.S. RUNNISAIDPUR, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI ……….Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE HOME COMMISSIONER (POLICE), HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL-CUM- INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TIRHUT RANGE, MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TIRHUT ZONE, MUZAFFARPUR 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SITAMARHI 7. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SITAMARHI 8. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR IN-CHARGE, SITAMARHI, SADAR, SITAMARHI 9. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SITAMARHI WEST, SITAMARHI 10. THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE, RUNNISAIDPUR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI ………….Respondents ---------------------------------- 2. 16.12.2011 The present writ petition has been filed for direction to the respondents to make correction of the date of birth as appearing in the petitioner’s service book, wherein the date of birth appears as 04.01.1952 instead of 03.01.1961 as claimed by the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7003 of 2011 wherein the petitioner himself confined his prayer only to the extent that the representation before the respondent no.9 would be disposed of. The final order dated 09.07.2011 impugned herein, has since been passed by the S.D.O. Sitamarhi (respondent no.9), inter alia, pointing out that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered on merits in view of a delay of 10 years having lapsed from the date of entering into service for purposes of correction of date of birth. Learned counsel for the petitioner is however, unable to point out any failure of natural justice or any perversity in the impugned order. Learned AAG.-8 appears for the respondents and supports the impugned order on the ground that the same has been passed after due application of mind and after considering the various judgments of the Apex Court in regard to the issue at hand. In view of the above this Court finds it difficult to interfere in the matter as the matter has been disposed of by a speaking order and after due opportunity of hearing being granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Fahad. ( Vikash Jain, J. )