S. Natarajan, J.
1. The petitioners had not produced any certificate regarding their date of birth. Consequently, the registers refer to the year of their birth, namely, 1926. Having regard to that entry, the possibility of the petitioners having been born at any time from 1st January, 1926 cannot be ruled out. Therefore, taking a via media view in the matter, the respondent-Authority has fixed the age of superannuation of the petitioners as 30th June, 1984. The petitioners want to question the validity of this order and their contention is that the authority should have fixed the date of birth as 31st September, 1926, viz., the last date of the year and continue them in service till 31st December, 1984. There is hardly any basis on which such a contention can be raised. Be that as it may, there is no scope for the petitioners to contend that there has been a variation in the service conditions, because the year of birth has not been changed. Even though it was open to the respondent to contend that the petitioners' birth could have occurred sometime during the first half of 1926, it had taken a via media course and fixed the date of birth of the petitioners as 30th June, 1926 and passed orders of retirement. There is no violation of any rule of law in the action taken by the respondent. Consequently, the petitioners are not entitled to file the petitions for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to secure reliefs. The petitions will accordingly stand dismissed.
2. It is however observed that if the petitioners have got materials in their possession to show that they were born on 31st December, 1926, or at any time after 30th 3une, 1926, they can seek remedies by filing a suit before the competent civil court.