1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

               i) Issue Notice upon the Respondents.

               ii) Call for the Records.

               iii) Issue rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondents to correct the entry regarding the date of birth of the Petitioner from '15.01.1965' to 25.12.1966' in the service book of the Petitioner.

               AND

               Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the erroneous recording of the date of birth of the Petitioner as '15.01.1965' in the Admit Card issued by the Respondent No.5 and the Service Book of the Petitioner Maintained by the Respondent No. 1 to 3 shall not be set aside and quashed.

               iv) And after hearing the parties, be pleased to make the rule absolute.

               AND

               In the interim, be pleased to direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue in service beyond 31.01.2025 till pendency of the Writ Petition.

               AND/OR

               Pass any other order/ orders as deemed fir and proper.

2. Heard Learned Counsel Mr. Kousik Roy appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also heard Learned Sr. G.A., Mr. Pradyumna Gautam appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.

3. At the time of hearing Learned Counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of the Court that the date of birth of the petitioner was 25.12.1966. The petitioner was enrolled as a student in Nalchar High School, Sonamura and in the Admission Register of the said school, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 25.12.1966. In this regard, the Headmaster of Nalchar High School had issued a School Certificate (Annexure-1) in favour of the petitioner on 26.02.1981 wherein it was provided that according to Admission Register the date of birth of the petitioner was 25.12.1966. Further, according to Learned Counsel, the petitioner appeared in the Madhyamik Examination (Secondary Examination) from Nalchar High School and at the time of appearing in the Madhyamik Examination, Admit Card was issued by the Tripura Board of Secondary Education (Annexure-2) and in the said admit card the date of Birth of the petitioner was recorded as 15.01.1965 which was erroneous. It was further submitted by Learned Counsel that later on the petitioner completed his higher studies and due to oversight no step was taken and after that on completion of higher studies the petitioner got appointment as an Assistant Teacher on 26.11.1990 and was initially posted at Sonamura Girls Higher Secondary School and at the time of joining according to the petitioner the petitioner submitted various documents including admit card containing the erroneous recording of her date of birth. But according to the petitioner, in all other documents her date of birth was recorded as 25.12.1966.

               Learned Counsel also submitted that in the year 2001, an inspection of Service Book was carried out in the school of the petitioner and in course of inspection, it was detected that the date of birth of the petitioner has been wrongly recorded as 15.01.1965 in the Service Book of the petitioner based on the erroneous recording of date of birth in the admit card of the petitioner. But being misguided the petitioner submitted representation to the Secretary, Tripura Board of Secondary Education on 16.12.2001 praying for correction of his date of birth in the admit card but the representation of the petitioner was not considered by the Authority.

               After that, on 02.04.2008 similar representation supported by an affidavit sweared before Learned J.M. 1st Class, Agartala, Tripura on 10.11.2000 was submitted by the petitioner before the respondent No.5 praying for correction of date of birth in the admit card as 25.12.1966 instead of 15.01.1965. However, inspite of submitting representation no response was given by the Authority.

               Later on, the petitioner on 01.12.2023 submitted representation to the respondent No.4 but no step was taken by the said school. After that, the petitioner again submitted representation to the respondent No.2 on 20.12.2024 and thereafter a legal notice was issued on 04.01.2024 but as no response was taken by the authority, so, under compelling circumstances the petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking the reliefs as stated above.

               Learned Counsel Mr. Roy also relied upon one judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this High Court in WP(C) No.1113 of 2016 dated 06.04.2017 wherein this Court granted relief to the petitioner of the said case and submitted that the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered by the said judgment of this Court and urged before this Court to allow the writ petition with necessary direction to the respondents accordingly.

4. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing counter affidavit. In para No.6 of the counter affidavit, it was specifically stated by the contesting respondents as follows:

               “6. That, with respect to paragraph-4 of the writ petition, it is humbly stated that the petitioner referred a judgment in case No WP(C) 1113 of 2016 but the instant petition is not same as it is claimed by the petitioner and urged the Hon'ble Court to interfere for correction of her date of birth.

               In the case No WP(C) 1113 of 2016 (Sri Monoranjan Debbarma Vs The state of Tripura), it is to be mentioned that the date of birth of Sri Monoranjan Debbarma was entered into the Service Book as 05.09.1951 whereas in his admit card issued by Tripura Board of Education was recorded as 05.09.1959 and TBSE also confirmed that the date of birth recorded in the admit card is genuine and more over his date of birth was not verified by the HO & DDO till the submission of representation to the authority for that reason the Hon'ble Court had asked to reinstate in service after his superannuation. But in the instant writ petition the date of birth of Smt. Gouri Roy which is entered in the service book and the Madhyamik Pariksha Certificate issued by TBSE is same i.e., 15.01.1965 not as she claimed as 25.12.1966. So there is no question arises for ambiguity.

               It is pertinent to mention here that Govt. of Tripura had issued a notification vide No.F.23(6)-GA(P&T)/2005 and the government has decided the procedural norms, the guidelines for change of the date of birth and disposal of any representation in that regard. The said memorandum dated 27.03.2007 has laid down the procedure as under:

               "(i) A Government servant shall have to submit application for correction of date of birth within 5(five) years from the date of his first entry into Government service. No application submitted by a government servant for correction of his date of birth on expiry of 5(five) years from the date of his first entry into the Government service shall be entertained.

               (ii) Date of birth may be corrected only when the proof is of unimpeachable character and with the prior approval of the General Administration (Personnel & Training) Department".

               Hence, the instant petitioner had applied for correction of date of birth after elapse of so many years and that too without any proof of unimpeachable character and after verification of service records. So the instant petition may be dismissed in the lime line as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.502 of 1993.”

               Learned Senior G.A. at the time of hearing submitted that by this time the petitioner has been retired from service and after elapsing of long period, this present petition cannot be entertained by this writ Court and furthermore, the fact of the case relied upon by the petitioner is different from the facts of the present case. According to Learned Senior G.A., in that case, the Tripura Board of Secondary Education (in short, TBSE) admitted that the date of birth of the petitioner of that case was 05.09.1959 and the admit card was genuine and moreover his date of birth was not verified by the authority. But here in the case at hand the present petitioner has applied for correction of date of birth after elapsing of so many years and without proof of any unimpeachable character and also after verification of service records.

               Moreso, according to Learned Senior G.A., the petitioner passed Madhyamik Examination in the year 1981 and after elapsing of long period there is no scope to consider the contention of the present petitioner for correction of date of birth in view of the communication dated 31.01.2025 to the Directorate of Secondary Education as annexed with the counter affidavit wherein it has been mentioned that a student can apply for Correction of Age within 2(two) years from the date of commencement of his/her Secondary level Examination or upto the last date of filling of Application Form for next H.S(+2 stage) Examination.

               Learned Senior G.A. also submitted that on the representation of the petitioner another letter has been communicated by the Secretary, TBSE on 15.01.2025 to Learned Counsel for the petitioner wherein it has been specifically informed that in view of the memorandum of Age Correction vide No.F.2(246)- SECY/MISC/TBSE/2020/3753-3755 dated 23.12.2020, a student can apply for Correction of Age within 2(two) years from the Date of Commencement of his/her Secondary level Examination or up to the late date of filling up of Application Form for next H/S(+2 stage) Examination, whichever is earlier. Learned Senior G.A. also relied upon the said memorandum annexed with the counter affidavit.

               So, in summing up, Learned Senior G.A. urged before this Court that as the petitioner has not come before the Court with clean hands so after elapsing of long period this present writ petition cannot be entertained and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5. I have heard both the sides and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition by the petitioner and also the documents submitted by the State-respondents with the counter affidavit. Admittedly, the present petitioner joined in the service as an Assistant Teacher on 26.11.1990 and she served in different schools under the Directorate of School Education and by this time she has been retired from service. The petitioner passed Madhyamik Examination in the year 1981. Now, if we consider the counter affidavit filed by the State-respondents, it appears that even at the time of verification of service records of the petitioner no step was taken by the petitioner for correction of date of birth recorded in the service book and also in the admit card issued by TBSE.

               At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioner although tried to draw the attention of this Court referring different annexures that in this regard so many representations were made by the petitioner but to substantiate those representations the petitioner could not place any other materials before the Court that those representations were duly received by the concerned authority and no step was taken by them. So, by mere filing some copies of representation it cannot be believed that in due course of time the present petitioner took steps for correction of date of birth in the service record and that to after a long period of her service and by this time she has retired from service.

6. Even if we believe the memorandum dated 27.03.2007 of the Government as mentioned in para 6 of the counter affidavit it appears that the present petitioner also failed to take any recourse to the said notification of the Government. Although in the rejoinder it was specifically submitted by the petitioner that the said notification does not give any retrospective effect. Even if we assume the said notification did not contain any retrospective effect still after elapsing of 30 years there is no scope to give any relief to the petitioner for correction of date of birth in the service record. In this regard, in a case reported in (2011) 9 SCC 664 [titled as State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Premlal Shrivas dated 19.09.2011] wherein in para No.8, Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed as under:

               “8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh:(1993) 2 SCC 162).”

               From the aforesaid observation of Hon’ble the Apex Court, it appears that in matters involving correction of Date of Birth of a Government servant particularly in the eve of his/her superannuation or at the fag end of his carrier the Court/Tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of Date of Birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry in the Government Service. Here in the case at hand no such step was taken by the petitioner even at the time of service verification by the department so after a long period at this stage there is no scope to consider the subject matter of the petitioner as contained in the instant petition.

7. Further, in another case reported in 1994 Supp(1) SCC 155 [titled as Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department and others Vs. R. Kirubakaran dated 21.09.1993] wherein in para No.7 and last part of para No.9, Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:

               “7. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their promotions for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case, on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the court or the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be filed within the time, which can be held to be reasonable. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the court or the tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their dates of birth in the service books. By this process, it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after the date of superannuation. The court or the tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief for continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior.

               9. …………… As such whenever an application for alteration of the date of birth is made on the eve of superannuation or near about that time, the court or the tribunal concerned should be more cautious because of the growing tendency amongst a section of public servants, to raise such a dispute, without explaining as to why this question was not raised earlier. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not possible to uphold the finding recorded by the Tribunal.”

               From the aforesaid observation made by Hon’ble the Apex Court, it appears that whenever an application for alteration of Date of Birth is made on the eve of superannuation or near about the time the Court or the Tribunal concerned should be more cautious because of growing tendency amongst a section of public servants to raise such a dispute without explaining as to why this question was not raised earlier. Here in the case at hand, even if we believe the case of the petitioner but on perusal of the relevant documents it appears that the petitioner joined in the service in the year 1990 and she passed Madhyamik Examination in the year 1981 i.e. almost 8(eight) years earlier prior to her joining in the service. During that period also, no such step was taken by the petitioner for correction of Date of Birth in the Admit Card issued by the TBSE because the Admit Card is a vital document for a candidate and that time also, the petitioner could take appropriate step.

8. Even since from the year 1990 to till 2024 no such effective steps could be taken by the petitioner for correction of her Date of Birth in the service record. Even at the time of service verification also, no such effective step was taken by the petitioner. The petitioner although tried to draw the attention of the Court referring some Annexures to substantiate that representations were made but before this Court no such evidence could be placed that at the relevant time inspite of receipt of her representation the authority concerned did not take any step. Even if we believe the story of the petitioner that the she approached to the Authority for correction of her wrong entry of date of birth in the service book and inspite of her approach the concerned Authority failed/refuse to consider her prayer, in that case, she also could earlier approach before the Court seeking appropriate redress. Now, at the fag end of her service, she has approached this Court seeking writ jurisdiction which cannot be considered at this belated stage in view of the principles of law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court as discussed above. More so, by this time, she has retired from service.

9. Situated thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case it appears to this Court that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for issuing any mandamus upon the respondents. In view of the above, the present writ petition bears no merit and accordingly the same stands dismissed. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no order is passed as to costs.

With this observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.

Pending applications(s), if any, also stands disposed of.