Oral Judgment

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Bhavin Thaker appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mitul Gautam appearing for the respondent-State.

2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Hence, RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: :-

          "A. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble court and be pleased to quash and set aside the communication issued by the respondent no.2 dated 18.09.2025 which is Annexed at Annexure-B to the petition and be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the retirement age of the petitioner as 31.12.2030.

          B. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of this Hon'ble court and be pleased to quash and set- aside the merit list dated 16.09.2025 at Annexure-D to the petition for appointment of candidates and quash and set-aside any further recruitment process initiated by respondent no.2 to fill the vacancy that would allegedly arise upon the petitioner's premature retirement on the aforesaid erroneous date.

          C. pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to not permanently retired the petitioner on the basis of her erroneous retirement date.

          D. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay any further recruitment initiated by the respondent no.2 to fill up any vacancy which may arise on premature retirement of the petitioner on the basis of erroneous date, pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition.

          E. YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice."

4. Learned advocate Mr. Bhavin Thaker appearing for the petitioner narrated the facts, which can be summarized as under:-

          4.1 It is the case of the petitioner that her actual date of birth is 25.12.1972. However, according to the petitioner, in the physical service record, some interpolation has taken place in respect of her date of birth and the same has been changed from 25.12.1972 to 25.12.1968. If the petitioner's date of birth is considered to be 25.12.1972, she would retire on 31.12.2030; however, in view of the fact that her date of birth is considered to be 25.12.1968, she would retire on 31.01.2026, and therefore the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

          4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Bhavin Thaker submitted that the petitioner joined services as an Anganwadi Worker on 02.09.1998 with Anganwadi Center Antlwada-2, Mahisagar, under respondent No. 2, and according to the petitioner's e-service book, she is to retire on 31.12.2030. However, the respondents, by considering the petitioner's retirement date to be 31.01.2026, have high-handedly initiated a recruitment process and published a merit list of candidates on 16.09.2025 to fill up the vacancy that may arise from the petitioner's retirement, and therefore the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

          4.3 Learned advocate Mr. Bhavin Thaker drew the attention of this Court to the birth certificate of the petitioner issued on 29.03.2004 i.e six years after the petitioner's appointment, by the Talati- cum-Mantri, Group Gram Panchayat, Amthani, Taluka: Kadana, District: Dahod, whereby the petitioner's date of birth is mentioned as 25.12.1972 and, according to the said certificate, the date of registration was 30.12.1972.

          4.4 Learned advocate Mr. Bhavin Thaker also pointed out from the photocopy of the original service book and submitted that though it bears the date 25.12.1968 as the petitioner's date of birth, there is overwriting and interpolation in the said document to give an impression that the petitioner's date of birth is 25.12.1968; however, the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 25.12.1972.

          4.5 Learned advocate Mr. Bhavin Thaker also relied upon a report submitted by the Talati-cum- Mantri, Group Gram Panchayat, Amthani, whereby, upon verifying the Birth and Death register, it is stated that the date of issue of the certificate is 29.03.2004, bearing the seal of District: Dahod, which is improper. According to the report submitted by the Talati-cum-Mantri, in the birth certificate the date of registration is shown as 30.12.1972, whereas in the birth and death register the date of registration is stated to be 25.12.1972. In the birth certificate, the registration number is 39, whereas in the birth and death register the registration number is stated to be 2. As per the report, the birth register ought to contain the signature of the competent officer, which is missing while registering the birth. Similarly, it was also observed that this appears to be a case of duplication, as there are discrepancies stated above. Prima facie, it seems that the certificate produced by the petitioner does not bear the signature of the competent authority, and he therefore submitted his opinion accordingly.

          4.6 According to learned advocate Mr. Bhavin Thaker, in view of such discrepancies, when the physical service book carries certain overwriting and interpolation, and as per the e-service book the petitioner's date of retirement is shown to be December 2030, the benefit should go to the petitioner, and this Court is required to direct the respondents to retire the petitioner on 30th December 2030 and not in the year 2026. He, therefore, prayed for the allowing the petition.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mitul Gautam, appearing for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner has been in service since 1998, and it is at the fag end of her career that she came to know that she will now retire in the year 2026 on the basis of her date of birth being considered as 1968. She has preferred this petition belatedly, which may not be entertained by the Court.

          5.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mitul Gautam relied upon a Government GR dated 08.05.1978, which provides that upon preparation of the service book before the end of the probation period, any request for change of date of birth is required to be entertained and not thereafter, and in case any such application is made thereafter, such change may take place only upon providing satisfactory material.

          5.2 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mitul Gautam thereafter drew the attention of the Court to the Government GR dated 10th August 1983, whereby it is provided that such request for change of date of birth can be entertained either before the probation period is over or within five years after the employee is made permanent, and the same provides for a certain checklist as well. That GR also specifies certain matters which are required to be taken into consideration.

          5.3 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mitul Gautam thereafter relied upon Rule 40 of the Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002, and by relying upon Rule 40, which deals with the procedure for recording events and the date of birth in the service book, submitted that Rule 2(g) provides that after completion of five years of continuous service, no such request for change of date of birth shall be considered.

          5.4 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mitul Gautam relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat versus Vali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi dated 19.07.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 3043 of 2006, reported in 2006 (6) SCC 537, and by relying upon the aforesaid decision, submitted that after five years of continuous service, such a request for change of date of birth should not be entertained by the Court, referring to the relevant portion of paragraph No. 10 of the judgment. It was also pointed out that any application for correction of date of birth should not be dealt with by the Court, Tribunal, or the High Court considering only the public servant concerned, as the same may have a chain reaction, affecting others waiting for years below him for their respective promotions. It is also pointed out from paragraph No. 10 that in many cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is often part of a strategy on the part of a public servant to approach the Court or Tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of entries regarding their date of birth in the service books, and therefore, the Court or Tribunal must be slow in granting any relief or in continuing them in service unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced before the Court. By relying upon the aforesaid decision, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mitul Gautam submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner's claim regarding the correctness of her date of birth was raised for the first time in the year 2025, after putting in 27 years of service, and just one month before her retirement on 31.01.2026.

          5.5 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mitul Gautam lastly relied upon a recent decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 15.07.2025 in the case of Hurmatben Chhotekhan Baloch versus State of Gujarat and others in Special Civil Application No. 14887 of 2019, and by relying upon the aforesaid decision, submitted that in a similar set of facts, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had dismissed the claim of the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

6. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, I find that the petitioner was employed in the year 1998 and remained idle for all these 27 years up to 2025. It is only when the petitioner is due to retire on 31.01.2026 that she has approached this Court, and therefore, such an approach by the petitioner, which is not appreciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot be considered, as the petitioner has not agitated the issue regarding any such discrepancy promptly. Even the Government GR regarding the change of date of birth provides that such an application can be made either before the probation period ends or within a period of five years upon acquiring the status of a permanent employee, and only in such cases is the application required to be entertained. In the instant case, though the petitioner joined the services in the year 1998, the certificate regarding her date of birth was produced only in 2004, i.e. after a period of six years. Moreover, there are discrepancies in the certificate, as stated in the foregoing paragraph while recording the submissions of learned advocates for the parties, which also indicate that such an application for change of date of birth was not made within the time prescribed by the State Government by way of GRs dated 08.05.1978 and 10.08.1983, and in consonance with Rule 40 of the Gujarat Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 2002.

7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of State of Gujarat versus Vali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi dated 19.07.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 3043 of 2006, reported in 2006 (6) SCC 537, in paragraphs 8 to 15, has observed as under:-

          "8. It is to be noted that there are several rules governing request to change the date of birth. One of them is Rule 171 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 (in short the 'Rules'). This Rule clearly provides that the request made for alteration of date of birth should not be entertained after the preparation of the service book of the Government servant and in any event not after the completion of the probation period or after 5 years of continuous service whichever was earlier. The said rule categorically provides that once an entry of age or date of birth has been made in the service book, no alteration of the entry afterwards should be allowed unless it is shown that the entry was due to want of care on the part of some person other than individual in question or is an obvious clerical error.

          9. Normally, in public service, with entering into the service, even the date of exit, which is said as date of superannuation or retirement, is also fixed. That is why the date of birth is recorded in the relevant register or service book, relating to the individual concerned. This is the practice prevalen in all services, because every service has fixed the age of retirement, it is necessary to maintain the date of birth in the service records. But, of late a trend can be noticed, that many public servants, on the eve of their retirement raise a dispute about their records, by either invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or by filing applications before the concerned Administrative Tribunals, or even filing suits for adjudication as to whether the dates of birth recorded were correct or not.

          10. Most of the States have framed statutory rules or in absence thereof issued administrative instructions as to how a claim made by a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth in the service record is to be dealt with and what procedure is to be followed. In many such rules a period has been prescribed within which if any public servant makes any grievance in respect of error in the recording of his date of birth, the application for that purpose can be entertained. The sole object of such rules being that any such claim regarding correction, of the date of birth should not be made or entertained after decades, especially on the eve of superannuation of such public servant. In the case of State of Assam v. Daksha Prasad Deka (1970 (3) SCC 624), this Court said that the date of the compulsory retirement "must in our judgment, be determined on the basis of the service record and not on what the respondent claimed to be his date of birth, unless the service record is first corrected consistently with the appropriate procedure." In the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Hayagreev Sarma (1990 (2) SCC 682) the A.P. Public Employment (Recording and alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 were considered. The public servant concerned had claimed correction of his date of birth with reference to the births and deaths register maintained under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal corrected the date of birth as claimed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, in view of the entry in the births and deaths register ignoring the rules framed by the State Government referred to above. It was inter alia observed by this Court:

          "The object underlying Rule 4 is to avoid repeated applications by a government employee for the correction of his date of birth and with that end in view it provides that a government servant whose date of birth may have been recorded in the service register in accordance with the rules applicable to him and if that entry had become final under the rules prior to the commencement of 1984 Rules, he will not be entitled for alteration of his date of birth."

          In Executive Engineer, Bhadrak (R&B) Division, Orissa and Ors. v Rangadhar Mallik (1993 Supp.(1) SCC 763), Rule 65 of the Orissa General Finance Rules, was examined which provides that representation made for correction of date of birth near about the time of superannuation shall not be entertained. The respondent in that case was appointed on November 16, 1968. On September 9, 1986, for the first time, he made a representation for changing his date of birth in his service register. The Tribunal issued a direction as sought for by the respondent. This Court set aside the Order of the Tribunal saying that the claim of the respondent that his date of birth was November 27, 1938 instead of November 27, 1928 should not have been accepted on basis of the documents produced in support of the said claim, because the date of birth was recorded as per document produced by the said respondent at the time of his appointment and he had also put his signature in the service roll accepting his date of birth as November 27, 1928. The said respondent did not take any step nor made any representation for correcting his date of birth till September 9, 1986. In case of Union of India v. Harnam Singh (1993 (2) SCC 162) the position in law was again re- iterated and it was observed:

          "A Government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of the employment is, of course, not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age. It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in possession of irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant must do so without any unreasonable delay."

          An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Courts, 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 loose the promotion for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. This is certainly an important and relevant 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 and that too within a reasonable time as provided in the rules governing the service, the Court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction or make a declaration on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued or declaration made, 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 within at least a reasonable time. 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 about 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 date 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 or 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 thereby caused injustice to his immediate junior.

          11. The position was succinctly stated by this Court in the above terms in The Secretary and Commissioner Home Department and Ors. v. R. Kirubakaran (JT 1993 (5) SC 404).

          12. As observed by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan (1994 (6) SCC 302) and State of Orissa and Ors. v. Ramanath Patnaik (1997 (5) SCC 181) when the entry was made in the service record and when the employee was in service he did not make any attempt to have the service record corrected, any amount of evidence produced subsequently is of no consequence. The view expressed in R. Kirubakaran's case (supra) was adopted.

          13. The above position was also noticed in State of U.P. and Others v. Gulaichi (Smt.) (2003 (6) SCC 483).

          14. In the instant case the Rules referred to above clearly indicate the permissible area for correction of date of birth. In view of the specific provisions made, it was not permissible to effect any change.

          15. The inevitable conclusion is that the order of learned Single Judge and impugned judgment of the Division Bench affirming it cannot be sustained. Both the orders are set aside. The appeal is allowed but without any orders as to costs."

8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has also taken a similar view by considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. versus Shyam Kishore Singh dated 05.02.2020, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 411 , and the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were reproduced in the aforesaid judgment. Paragraph No. 5.5 of the said decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 15.07.2025 in the case of Hurmatben Chhotekhan Baloch versus State of Gujarat and others in Special Civil Application No. 14887 of 2019, reads as under:

          "5.5 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (supra), more particularly paras : 8 to 12 thereof, which read as under.

          "8. This Court has consistently held that the request for change of the date of birth in the service records at the fag end of service is not sustainable. The learned Additional Solicitor General has in that regard relied on the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble & Ors. (2010) 14 SCC 423 wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court were taken note and was held as hereunder:

          "16. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri [(2005) 11 SCC 465 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 96] . In this case, this Court has considered a number of judgments of this Court and observed that the grievance as to the date of birth in the service record should not be permitted at the fag end of the service career.

          17. In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal [(2005) 11 SCC 477 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 106] relief was denied to the government employee on the ground that he sought correction in the service record after nearly 30 years of service. While setting aside the judgment of the High Court, this Court observed that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision after almost three decades.

          19. These decisions lead to a different dimension of the case that correction at the fag end would be at the cost of a large number of employees, therefore, any correction at the fag end must be discouraged by the court. The relevant portion of the judgment in Home Deptt.v. R. Kirubakaran [1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 449 : (1994) 26 ATC 828] reads as under: (SCC pp. 158- 59, para 7) "7. An application for correction of the date of birth [by a public servant cannot be entertained at the fag end of his service]. 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 promotion forever. ... 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. ... the onus is on the applicant to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book."

9. This Court in fact has also held that even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, the correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In that regard, in State of M.P. vs. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 it is held as hereunder;

          "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 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375 : (1993) 24 ATC 92] ).

          12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty-bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book."

10. The learned Additional Solicitor General has also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Factory Manager Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. vs. Laxman in SLP (C) Nos.2592-2593/2018 dated 25.04.2019 wherein the belated claim was not entertained. Further reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court in the case of M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ram Samugh Yadav & Ors. in C.A.No.7724 of 2011 dated 27.05.2019 wherein this Court has held as hereunder:

          "Nothing is on record that in the year 1987 when the opportunity was given to Respondent No.1, to raise any issue/dispute regarding the service record more particularly his date of birth in the service record, no such issue/dispute was raised. Only one year prior to his superannuation, Respondent No.1 raised the dispute which can be said to be belated dispute and therefore, the learned Single Judge as well as the employer was justified in refusing to accept such an issue.

          The Division Bench of the High Court has, therefore, committed a grave error in directing the appellant to correct the date of birth of Respondent No.1 in the service record after number of years and that too when the issue was raised only one year prior to his superannuation and as observed hereinabove no dispute was raised earlier."

          11. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has relied upon the decision of this Court relating the very same employer namely, the appellants herein in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. vs. Chhota Birasa Uranw (2014) 12 SCC 570 wherein this Court with reference to the earlier decisions of this Court has upheld the order of the High Court wherein a direction had been issued to effect the change in the date of birth. Having perused the same we are of the opinion that the said decision cannot render assistance to the respondent herein. This is for the reason that in the said case it was taken note that in 1987 on implementation of the National Coal Wage Agreement (iii) was put into operation for stabilising the service records of the employees and all its employees were provided a chance to identify and rectify the discrepancies in the service records by providing them a nomination form containing details of their service records. In the cited case the respondent (employee) therein had noticed the inconsistencies in the records regarding his date of birth, date of appointment, father's name and permanent address and availed the opportunity to seek correction. Though he had sought for the correction of the errors, the other discrepancies were set right but the date of birth and the date of appointment had however remained unchanged and it is in that view the employee had again raised a dispute regarding the same and the judicial remedy was sought wherein the benefit was extended to him.

          12. On the other hand, in the instant case, as on the date of joining and as also in the year 1987 when the respondent had an opportunity to fill up the Nomination Form and rectify the defect if any, he had indicated the date of birth as 04.03.1950 and had further reiterated the same when Provident Fund Nomination Form was filled in 1998. It is only after more than 30 years from the date of his joining service, for the first time in the year 2009 he had made the representation. Further the respondent did not avail the judicial remedy immediately thereafter, before retirement. Instead, the respondent retired from service on 31.03.2010 and even thereafter the writ petition was filed only in the year 2014, after four years from the date of his retirement. In that circumstance, the indulgence shown to the respondent by the High Court was not justified."

9. In view of the above, as the petitioner has approached this Court after 27 years of joining the services, and though the prayer is drafted in a different manner, the resultant effect, if granted, would be to allow the petitioner to serve for four more years by treating her date of birth as 25.12.1972 instead of 25.12.1968. Such an act on the part of the petitioner is impermissible, not only in view of the Government GRs but also in light of the judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. Therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed, and the same is dismissed.

Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.