Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal from the order Varadaraja Iyengar, J. made on 17-2-1958 in O.P. No. 151 of 1956 (E) dismissing it. The fact of the case so far as they are necessary for the purpose of this appeal and the reasons for the dismissal of the petition are set out in that order as follows: "The only question here is whether the respondent State had acted in excess of their jurisdiction when they refused to accept any age other than that entered in the petitioner's College certificate, for purpose of entry in his Service Book The matter has been settled so far as this court is concerned that it is for the Government to prefer any particular age as the governing age so far as they are concerned. By Notification in 1950 they had enunciated their policy that when the age given in the school or college Register conflicts with the age gatherable from the Birth Register or other records, the former will prevail for purpose of computation of Government service. The validity of this notification specifically came up for consideration in A.I.R. 1953 T.C. 140 and this court certainly held that there was nothing invalid in the Notification. This principle has been consistently accepted by later decisions of this court. See 1954 K.L.T 966 & 1956 KLT 956 and finally 1957 KLT 608 F.B. It is therefore too late in the day to raise this question as a matter of jurisdiction" 2. We are in entire agreement with the learned judge that the petitioner cannot have any remedy for his complaint at the hands of this court. At the same time we feel constrained to observe that the Press Note on the basis of which the order impugned here has been made has given rise to considerable hardship to several civil servants in the Travancore-Cochin area and that in shutting out an enquiry when a civil servant complains that his age has been wrongly entered in his school or college admission register, it [the Press Note] is denying to him even elementary justice and fair play. We may conveniently quote here the observations which a Bench of the Travancore-Cochin High Court made in disposing of the earliest case where this Press Note came up for consideration. We may conveniently quote here the observations which a Bench of the Travancore-Cochin High Court made in disposing of the earliest case where this Press Note came up for consideration. At page 146 (para 22) of the decision reported in A. I. R.1953 Travancore-Cochin 140 it has been observed: "We are not called upon to pronounce whether the entry la the Cochin Civil List as to the petitioner's age is wrong or not. Even when the arguments stated we made it clear that we will not enter into that question. However, the petitioner's explanation as to the discrepancy had favourably impressed the then Chief Justice of this Court and even when the order of retirement was communicated to him the learned Chief Justice would appear to have taken the view that the question of the petitioner's age should he made the subject of a judicial enquiry. If the rule or policy evolved by the Government had a rider added to it that if an officer did not agree to his date of birth being corrected as per his college or school admission register or demanded an enquiry, the same will be held, and in the event of the result being unfavourable to the officer it will entail his dismissal or even a prosecution, the bitterness or the sense of frustration this policy engendered in the minds, of the civil servants of the State would not have been there Government's policy that there should not be a premium put on those who gave wrong dates of birth when joining the service is understandable, may commendable, but that policy should not in fairness penatlise those whose dates of birth happened to be wrongly entered in their college or school admission registers". 3. The hardship of the rule has again been referred to in 1959 K.L.T. 956 and that decision gave expression to the view that there was nothing in the rules which prohibits the Government from accepting as proof of age of an officer documents other than school or college records. We repeat here the view that the rigour of the Press Note requires relaxation. It is high time its machiavellian out-look is given the go-by and civil servants are allowed a fair-deal in the matter of proving their correct age. With these observations we dismiss the appeal, but in the circumstances, without costs. Order accordingly. Dismissed.