D. N. Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated 12th October, 2015 (Reported in 2015 (4) AIR Jhar R 427) passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 203 of 2015 whereby, the correction in the date of. birth was not allowed by the learned single Judge and no writ of mandamus was issued and hence, the original writ petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant is the original petitioner, who has preferred a writ petition for changing the date of birth. As per this appellant (original petitioner) his date of birth is 9th January, 1960 whereby as per the respondents it is 25th June, 1952. It further appears from Annexure-3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal which is a service excerpts, which reveals that this appellant was of 34 years on 25th June, 1986. This document has also been signed by this appellant. His signature is at page No. 16 to the memo of the Letters Patent Appeal. It further appears from the facts of the case that never any dispute has been raised by this appellant (original petitioner) which relates to the age of superannuation which is dated 25th June, 2012.
(3.) Even the writ petition has been preferred after three years from the date of his retirement.;