HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 13944 of 2026 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the alteration dated 31.03.2010 recorded in his service record, pursuant to the recommendation of the committee dated 06.01.2010, whereby his date of birth has been altered from 01.09.1967 to 01.04.1964. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such alteration is stated to be in violation of Rule 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, read with Note 6 of Fundamental Rule 56. He has further emphasised that the aforesaid alteration has been made without affording any opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner. It is further submitted that the case of similarly situated employees has been allowed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.04.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 13535 of 2020 (Ram Naresh and 5 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others) (Annexure No.4). 3. Sri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that, if the date of birth of the petitioner ,i.e., 01.09.1967 is treated as correct, then on the date of his appointment, i.e. in the year 1981, he would have been only 14 years of age, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. Accordingly, having regard to the medical certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, the alteration has been made in the service record of the petitioner relating to his date of birth. 4. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present writ Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Neeraj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vijay Bahadur Maurya Lal Chandra .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) petition pending. 5. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with the direction that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate representation ventilating his grievance, as raised in the instant writ petition, before the Municipal Commissioner (respondent No. 2) within a period of three weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order and a self- attested copy of the writ petition. Upon receipt of the said representation, the respondent No. 2 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, in the light of the judgment and order dated 09.04.2025 passed by this Court in Writ-A No. 13535 of 2020 (Ram Naresh and 5 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others), within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation. 6. With the aforesaid directions and observations, present writ petition stands disposed of. September 8, 2026 vkg WRIA No. 13944 of 2026 2 (Dinesh Pathak,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad