HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15385 of 2025 with Writ - A No. - 15387 of 2025 (Munnu Singh vs. State of U.P. and another) Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners in the leading and connected petitions, and Shri Vivek Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for both parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit, and that the writ petitions may be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the writ petitions are being decided at the fresh stage. 3. The case of the writ petitioner in the leading writ petition is that he was appointed to the post of Home Guard on 01.12.1984. While his actual date of birth is 01.03.1967, the service records incorrectly reflect his date of birth as 01.01.1966. It is further stated that he stood superannuated on 31.12.2025. 4. Accordingly, a prayer has been made for a direction to Respondent No. 2 – District Commandant, Home Guards, District Jalaun, to correct the date of birth of the petitioner from 01.01.1966 to 01.03.1967. 5. As regards the connected writ petition, the petitioner therein was appointed as a Home Guard on 01.12.1984. His date of birth, as per the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Arvind Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Dharmpal Singh Alias Dhrampal Singh .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) educational testimonials, is stated to be 22.01.1968, whereas in the service records, it has been recorded as 22.01.1966. The said petitioner has also been retired from service on 31.12.2025. Hence, a similar prayer for correction of the date of birth has been made. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, however, submits that at the fag end of the service career, the petitioners have no legal right to seek correction of the date of birth. It is not a case where the petitioners were unaware of the incorrect entry at any earlier stage. The service record reflecting the disputed date of birth was well within the petitioners' knowledge, and no action was taken by both the petitioners during the course of their employment. 7. I have heard the submissions advanced across the bar and perused the record. 8. The facts are not in dispute. It is not the case of either of the petitioners that they were unaware of the incorrect entry of their date of birth in the service records. Once this fact is admitted, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that there existed any circumstance beyond the control or comprehension of the petitioners which prevented them from taking appropriate steps to seek correction during their service tenure. 9. Importantly, at the fag end of service, correction of date of birth cannot be permitted. 10. In the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. S.M. Jadhav & Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 52, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, application for correction of date of birth should be made within a reasonable time and certainly not at the fag end of the career. Otherwise, it would be open to gross misuse and manipulation by unscrupulous employees. 11. This Court does not find any merit, though, both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. October 14, 2025 S.A. WRIA No. 15385 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad