Order.- The petitioner appeared for the S.S.L.C. Examination and failed in the year 1964 as well as at a second examination. When he sought to join the Indian Air Force, he found that he had to be between the ages of 17 and 20. In bis School-Leaving Certificate however his date of birth was recorded as 21st October, 1944. He ascertained from his father that this was a mistake and that his correct date of birth according to the register kept in the Municipality is 22nd October, 1946. He thereupon moved the Director of Public Instruction to correct the date of birth as entered in the Secondary School-Leaving Certificate. The Director of Public Instruction declined to do so. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the Director of Public Instruction to deal with the matter as he has no other adequate or effective remedy. It is difficult to see what duty is cast upon the Director of Public Instruction to correct an entry in the School-Leaving Certificate more particularly when the petitioner is no longer a student of any school. It is however urged by Mr. Chengal-varoyan that the wrong entry in the S.S.L.C. register will have a deleterious effect on the future prospects of the petitioner in that unless it is corrected he has no other means of getting his correct age being accepted, by whatever authorities he may approach. The decision in Ramamurthi v. Director of Public Instruction1 has been referred to. That was a case for the issue of a mandamus under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act and the learned Judge observed that to have on the School Certificate a date which does not correspond with the Certificate of the Register of Births is absurd and should not be permitted to remain by any public authority. This decision however has not been wholly accepted in Director of Public Instruction v. Mohandas2. In that decision it was pointed out that the ultimate decision in the earlier case referred to was supported by the rules according to which the Director of Public Instruction was bound to deal with the matter on merits. This decision however has not been wholly accepted in Director of Public Instruction v. Mohandas2. In that decision it was pointed out that the ultimate decision in the earlier case referred to was supported by the rules according to which the Director of Public Instruction was bound to deal with the matter on merits. But the learned Judges who decided the latter case did not fully accept the observations of Bell, J., that there was any duty on the part of the Director of Public Instruction to make a correction solely because the recorded age differed from the age which appeared in other public records. Mr. Chengalvaroyan does not deny that the Director of Public Instruction may be said to be under a duty to effect the correction so long as the petitioner continued to be a student. When once the petitioner ceased to be a student there was nothing in relation to him that the Director of Public Instruction is called upon by any regulation to do and if that should be the correct position, the Director of Public Instruction was justified in rejecting the application. This petition is accordingly dismissed. K.S. ----- Petition dismissed.