WA 209/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI HON’BLR MR JUSTICE H BARUAH By judgment and order, dated 08.03.2011, passed in WP(C) No. 2802/2009, whereby the petitioner’s [i.e., the present appellant] prayer for correction of his date of birth, as stood recorded in his service book, was rejected. The present app eal has been preferred by the appellant against the said judgment and order. Heard Mr. I. H. Saikia, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, and Mr. Deka, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted that, in the service book of the petitioner [i.e., the present appellant] the date of birth o f the petitioner stood recorded as 31.12.1950; whereas, the petitioner-appellant ’s actual date of birth is as claimed by him to be 31.12.1953. It also needs to be noted, in this regard, that the petitioner-appellant was appointed, initiall y, as a work-charged employee in the year 1974 and he accepted his date of birth to be 31.12.1950 by affixing his signature as well as thumb impression on his s ervice book. The petitioner continued his service on that basis and, thereafter , it was just before his retirement, in 2004, i.e., long after 30 years of servi ce, that he claimed that his date of birth is 31.12.1953. He made formal applica tion, in this regard, in the year 2007. As the petitioner was sought to be rele ased, on 31.12.2010, on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner, as a Grade-IV employee, challenged the correctness of the date of birth as stood re corded in his service book. The contention of the petitioner was that the servi ce book was prepared in the year 2005 and he, being virtually illiterate, did no t have any idea as to what date of birth had been recorded in his service book. In support of his actual date of birth, the petitioner relied on a School Certi ficate, which was issued to the petitioner by the Head Master of Hazi Abdur Rohm an Chowdhury ME School, Badarpur, on 31.08.1999. This shows that, at least, on 31.08.1999, the petitioner had his certificate, which he relies upon, stating th at he has read up to Class IV. In such circumstances, petitioner cannot, be rea dily held to have not known as to what date of birth has been mentioned in his s ervice book, particularly, when he had already put his thumb impression and sign ature on the service book. The petitioner has also not disclosed as to how he, suddenly, came to know that his date of birth has not been correctly recorded in his service book. At any rate, what the petitioner contends is a question to be decided on the bas is of evidence and, recording of evidence was not possible in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned order, dismissing the writ petition, does not suffer from any infirmity, factual or legal. This appeal is, therefore, not admitted and the sa me shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.