ORDER K.S. Bakthavatsalam. J. 1. The petitioner has come to this Court praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the first respondent's order dated 11.11.1988 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to alter the petitioner's correct date of birth by substituting 11.6.1933 in the Service Register instead of 17.10.1931 to enable him to continue in service till 30.6.1991, the actual date of superannuation. 2. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the Madras Judicial Ministerial Service in 1954 in District Munsif Court at Melur, Madurai District. Subsequently, he was selected and appointed as Sub-Magistrate at Arni, North Arcot District. Thereafter, he was promoted as Judicial First Class Magistrate and posted in Virudhunagar in 1980. In the public interest, owing to an emergency which had arisen to fill immediately a vacancy in the category of District Munsif, the petitioner was transferred and temporarily appointed as District Munsif by transfer and he was posted as Additional District Munsif at Srivilliputhur. The petitioner entered into the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Services with effect from 27.7.1982. It is to be seen that the service of the petitioner governed by the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules came into force on 1.1.1955. 4. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that at the time of his joining in Government Judicial Ministerial Service, his father being not so much educated and due to his ignorance had wrongly given his date of birth 17.10.1931 and it came to be entered accordingly in his school records. The petitioner's contention in the affidavit is that he was born on 11.6.1933 and not on 17.10.1931. The petitioner admits in the affidavit that when he joined in Government Judicial Ministerial Service, he gave his date of birth as 17.10.1931 and that date was entered in his service register in 1954 itself. According to the petitioner, the mistake as to the date of birth mentioned in his service register remained unnoticed until 1986, when there was a family talk of his eldest brother S. Subbiah retiring from service in the following year, 1987. According to the petitioner, the mistake as to the date of birth mentioned in his service register remained unnoticed until 1986, when there was a family talk of his eldest brother S. Subbiah retiring from service in the following year, 1987. It seems that when the petitioner came to doubt about the actual date of his birth, he had applied for a certified copy of Birth Register Extract and then only to his shock and surprise, he came to know that his date of birth was shown as 11.6.1933 instead of 17.10.1931. The petitioner further points out in the affidavit that his eldest brother, S. Subbiah was born on 19.9.1929 and his elder brother, S. Chockalingam was born on 24.7.1931. Considering the dates of birth of his two brothers, who are elder to him, the petitioner states in his affidavit that the correctness of his date of birth as 11.6.1933 cannot at all be doubted. It is further stated in the affidavit that the petitioner is not responsible for the incorrect particulars regarding his date of birth in the school as well as in the service register and therefore, he is entitled to ask for alteration of the correct date of birth in the service register, in that such right is comprehended in the right to continue in office until the correct date of superannuation, viz., on 30.6.1991. It seems that the petitioner had applied to the Commissioner, Revenue Administration, Madras through the second respondent for relaxation of Rule 49(c) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and the said application was returned to him for administrative reasons, directing him to apply through the parent department for relaxation of Rule 49(c). It is admitted in the affidavit that the petitioner did not immediately pursue the matter since his service was not regularised as a Magistrate in the Judicial Department and as such he submitted a fresh application on 14.6.1988 to the High Court, Madras requesting them to address to the Government for relaxation of Rule 49(c). After receipt of application, the first respondent-Government turned down the said request summarily by letter dated 11.11.1988 on the ground that the petitioner did not apply within the stipulated period of five years from the date of his entry into the Government service and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 30.11.1988. After receipt of application, the first respondent-Government turned down the said request summarily by letter dated 11.11.1988 on the ground that the petitioner did not apply within the stipulated period of five years from the date of his entry into the Government service and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 30.11.1988. The petitioner further alleges that the impugned order summarily rejecting his request for alteration of date of birth, without application of mind and consideration of the relevant material documents for not providing him an opportunity to the appointing authorities the importance of the vital document viz., the Birth Register Extract bearing his name. It is stated in the affidavit that the prescription of five year period under the above rule is not rigid and absolute in character from the perusal of the rule referred to above. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit that the procedures adopted by the respondents are erroneous in law since he had joined the service in 1954, prior to the introduction of the above rule and that the above was amended only in 1978. Relying upon certain Government Orders passed in 1961, the petitioner contends that Rule 49(c) covers his case. It is further alleged in the affidavit that Rule 49 of The Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules cannot be extended to the persons who had entered service prior to the date of introduction of the said Rules; Certain unreported decisions of this Court have been referred to by the petitioner, apart from the decision reported in S. Selvavinayagam v. State of Tamil Nadu 1985 W.L.R. 742 in support of his contention. It is seen that the petitioner has filed O.S.No. 50 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Valliyur, Tirunelveli District for two reliefs viz. (i) declaring that he was born on 11.6.1933 and (ii) consequently to direct the Director of School Education to alter his date of birth in the S.S.L.C. Book, impleading the District Collector of Tirunelveli, Kattabomman Dist. and the Director of School Education, Madras. After contest the said suit was decreed as prayed for as per the judgment and decree dated 21.8.1989 which has become final and conclusive in so far as the parties are concerned. and the Director of School Education, Madras. After contest the said suit was decreed as prayed for as per the judgment and decree dated 21.8.1989 which has become final and conclusive in so far as the parties are concerned. It is stated that after obtaining a declaratory decree as to the date of birth, the petitioner once again sent his application on 15.9.1989 for correction of his date of birth in the service register and that application is still pending. 5. The petitioner further points out in his affidavit that as per the provisions of Rule 30(g) of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules, 1955, he is entitled to file such an application within five years from the date of his first regular appointment to Government service and as such the remedy is not barred by limitation. He further states that he had been neither negligent nor careless in pursuing the matter because soon after the filing of the suit, he has been approaching this Court for appropriate remedy. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent stating that the petitioner has not challenged the entry regarding the date of birth in the service register for nearly thirty years and that therefore, he is not entitled to the relief of rectification of the date of birth at this distance of time. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner, had deliberately filed a suit in O.S.No. 50 of 1989 and obtained a decree on 21.3.1989. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that there is no proof to show that the petitioner was the third son" of Sundaram Asari and that in the suit filed by the petitioner, any one of his brothers was not examined. It is further alleged in the counter that the petitioner is not entitled to continue in service after 31.10.1989 and therefore his representation to the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Madras is misconceived. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the claim of the petitioner is time barred as per the provisions of Rule 30(c) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service Rules. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the claim of the petitioner is time barred as per the provisions of Rule 30(c) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service Rules. It is further submitted in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had submitted the application for, alteration of the date of birth as 11.6.1933 only during 1988, contending that he is the youngest of the three sons, that his date of birth had been inadvertently given as 17.10.1931 by his father and accordingly, the same has been entered in the register in the sub-registrar's office at Radhapuram, that he came to know about the incorrect entry in the records only in 1986 and that he could not apply for alteration of date of birth within the time limit prescribed under the rules. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was working in the Judicial Ministerial Service and v/as appointed to the Judicial Service by transfer and his services have also been regularised in the judicial services. It is also pointed out in the counter affidavit that Rule 28 of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service Rules shall not apply in so far as the petitioner's case is concerned. Since there are no merits in the petitioner's contention, his request was rejected summarily. 7. Mr. Muthusami, learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order is not valid in law since the petitioner was appointed as District Munsif as early as in 1988 and therefore the remedy is not barred by prescribed limitation. Learned Counsel would further contend that since the petitioner has obtained a declaratory decree in the civil Court, to which the first respondent is a party, the first respondent is bound to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as declared by the civil Court in the suit filed by the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader contends that as per Rule 30(f) and (g) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service Rules, the decision of the Government shall be final and since the petitioner applied for rectification of his date of birth belatedly, such request cannot be entertained. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader contends that as per Rule 30(f) and (g) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service Rules, the decision of the Government shall be final and since the petitioner applied for rectification of his date of birth belatedly, such request cannot be entertained. Learned Additional Government Pleader further contends that the petitioner having filed the suit before the lower court for two reliefs and having obtained one relief viz., mandatory injunction only for altering the date of birth in his S.S.L.C. Book and the other relief of mandatory injunction for altering the date of birth in his Service Register and other records having not been obtained by the petitioner, it is not open to him to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by both sides, Rule 30 of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service Rules reads as follows: Alteration of date of birth: (a) If, at the time of his appointment to the service by direct recruitment, a candidate claims that his date of birth is different from that entered in his S.S.L.C., or Matriculation Register or School Records, he shall make an application to Government through the High Court stating the evidence on which he relies and explaining how the mistake had occurred. The application shall be forwarded to the Board of Revenue for report after investigation by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector and on receipt of the report, the Government shall decide whether the alteration of date of birth may be permitted or the application rejected: Provided that in the case of a candidate who was born outside the State of Madras the investigation through the Board of Revenue shall be dispensed with and the Madras Public Service Commission or the appointing authority, as the case may be, shall examine and scrutinise the record that may be produced by the candidate and shall decide whether the alteration of date of birth may be permitted or the application may be rejected: (b) After a person has entered the service by direct recruitment, an application to correct the date of his birth as entered in the Official records shall normally be entertained only if such an application is made within five years of such entry into the service. Such an application shall be made to Government through the. High Court and shall be disposed of in accordance with the procedure laid down in Sub-rule (a). (c) Any application received after five years after entry into service shall be summarily rejected. (d) In considering the question of permitting an alteration of date of birth as entered in the official records even with such entry is proved to have been due to a bona fide mistake the Government shall take into consideration the circumstances whether the applicant would have been normally eligible for appointment to the post at the time of entry into the service had his age been correctly stated and what, would have been its effect on his service and the service conditions of further officers in service and may permit the alteration subject to such conditions as they may deem fit to impose. (e) The procedure laid down in Sub-rule (a) shall be followed in all cases where alteration of date of birth is proposed suo motu by the Head of Office on the basis of medical opinion in the absence of any other authoritative records. Explanation: For the purpose of this sub-rule authoritative records are the Secondary School Leaving Certificate or University College or School records. (f) The decision of the Government shall be final (g) The procedure prescribed in Sub-rules (a) to (f) in the case of a candidate recruited direct to the service shall apply to a candidate recruited by transfer, provided that this application is made within five years from the date of his first regular appointment to Government service: Provided that in the case of a candidate who was born outside the State of Madras the investigation through the Board of revenue shall be dispensed with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or the appointing authority, as the case may be, shall examine and scrutinise the records that may be produced by the candidate and shall decide whether the alteration of date of birth may be permitted or the application may be rejected. 10. A reading of the Rule 30(f) clearly shows that the petitioner has to submit his application for rectification of his date of birth within a period of five years from the date of his first regular appointment. 10. A reading of the Rule 30(f) clearly shows that the petitioner has to submit his application for rectification of his date of birth within a period of five years from the date of his first regular appointment. It is to be seen that according to Rule 30(c), any application received after five years of entry into service shall be summarily rejected. Both the Sub-rules (c) and (f) of Rule 30 have got to be taken into consideration. I am of the view that the application submitted by the petitioner is hopelessly barred by limitation. I do not think that the decisions referred to by the petitioner will apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. It cannot be denied that Rule 30(c) was in force at the time when the petitioner was transferred as District Munsif from the post of Sub-Magistrate. Therefore, no question of retrospective operation of the rule arises. The rule was always there and the petitioner ought to have applied for rectification of his date of birth within five years from the date of his entry into service, as envisaged by Rule 30(f). Since the petitioner has not done so, I think his contention to the contra has to fail. Further, it is seen that the petitioner came to know of the incorrect entry regarding his date of birth in the service register only some-where in 1986. Nothing prevented him at that distance of time to apply for altering the date of birth in the records as stated above. 11. Further, O.S.No. 50 of 1989 filed by the petitioner was decreed in his favour with regard to the entry as regards the date of birth as 11.6.1933 in the S.S.L.C. book. The Court has specifically declined to grant the mandatory relief as against the State. The suit was dismissed in so far as that portion of the prayer was concerned, I am not able to agree with learned Counsel for the petitioner that the reasoning of the Court to decline the relief as against the State has not to be taken into account. I am not able to appreciate his arguments. Whether the reasoning of the lower Court is correct or not, the suit was dismissed in so far as, the State is concerned, asking for mandatory injunction. I am not able to appreciate his arguments. Whether the reasoning of the lower Court is correct or not, the suit was dismissed in so far as, the State is concerned, asking for mandatory injunction. In such circumstances, I do not think a writ of mandamus can be issued against the State in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata will apply to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, Considering this principle, I am of the view that in so far, as the relief for mandatory injunction which was declined by the trial Court is concerned, this Court cannot be asked for the issuance of such a writ of mandamus. The unreported decision of Sathiadev, J. and the decision of Natarajan, J. reported in Selvavinayagam v. State of Tamil Nadu 1985 W.L.R. 742) are not applicable to the case on hand, as they are governed by Rule 49 as contended by the petitioner. The petitioner's contention is time barred as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service Rules. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being discretionary, I am not inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. It is also not a healthy practice to entertain such alteration of date of birth of the petitioner in the last minute, before the date of his retirement. In the instant case also, the petitioner has approached this Court only on 30.10.1989, when he was about to retire. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to accept the contentions of the petitioner at this point of time and therefore, the relief asked for cannot be granted.