Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. Petitioner was working as Headmaster in the Government U.P. School, Neduorakkad, Cherthala. He retired on superannuation on 31.3.1998. A few days before the date of retirement, that is on 17.3.1998, he submitted an application before the Government for correction of date of birth in his service records, so that he could continue in service as Headmaster till 31.3.1999. The request of the petitioner was rejected by the Government by order dated 5.5.1998 stating that the application of the petitioner for correction of date of birth in the service records cannot be entertained, since he did not apply for the same within the time-limit stipulated in Government Order, G.O.P.N0.45/91/P&ARD dated 30.12.1991. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, and hence has approached this court. 2. Petitioner entered service of the General Education Department as Primary Departmental Teacher on 7.1.1969. At the time of entry into service the date of birth given by the petitioner was 15.12.1942. Going by the said date, he was to retire on 31.3.1998, which he did. 3. Government issued an order dated 30.12.1991, referring to various earlier orders and circulars, with regard to correction of date of birth in the service records of employees of Government. Government noticed the growing tendency on the part of the Government employees to get the date of birth corrected when they are about to retire from service. Eventhough the Government felt that there was no necessity of even granting any opportunity to the employees for getting the date of birth corrected in the service records, Government still thought that an opportunity be granted in bona fide cases. Therefore, in modification of the earlier orders, it was ordered that application for correction of date of birth should be submitted to Government in the Administrative Department concerned, through proper channel, within a period of five years from the date of entry into service. However, in the case of those who are already in service, they have to submit the applications within a period of one year from the date of the Government order, provided they apply beyond the two year preceding retirement, reckoned with reference to the date of birth as recorded in the Service Book. It was also provided in the said order that applications should be supported by attested copies of SSLC/SSC book or extract of school record as corrected. It was also provided in the said order that applications should be supported by attested copies of SSLC/SSC book or extract of school record as corrected. Government order also states that applications for condonation of delay and for entertainment of applications in relaxation of the condition regarding time-limit would be summarily rejected. 4. On the basis of the Government order, Government gave a last opportunity to those who are in service to submit their applications within a period of one year from the date of the Government order, provided they apply beyond the two year preceding retirement, reckoned with reference to the date of birth as recorded in the Service Book. Petitioner, though entered service as early as on 7.1.1969, did not take any steps to get the Service Book corrected even on the basis of the earlier circulars dated 3.12.1987 and 24.10.1988 and also Government order dated 27.8.1991. Petitioner even did not file any application before the Commissioner for Government Examinations for correction of date of birth in the school records in time. Before the Government he filed a petition on 10.12.1992 to condone the delay in filing the application for correction of date of birth in the SSLC book and got it condoned wide orders dated 17.12.1992. Government passed the order condoning the delay under R.3 of Chapter VI of the KER. Petitioner then filed an application on 31.12.1992 before the Commissioner for Government Examinations for carrying out the correction of date of birth in his school records. According to petitioner, nothing transpired in the office of the Commissioner for Government Examinations. Six years after filing the application, petitioner approached this Court and filed O.P. No. 4410 of 1998, which was disposed of by this Court on 6.3.1998, directing the Commissioner for Government. Examinations to pass orders on the petitioner's application dated 30.12.1992 on or before 25.3.1998. Commissioner for Government Examinations then passedExt.P5 order dated 11.3.1998 according sanction for correction of date of birth of the petitioner from 15.12.1942 to 15.12.1943 in the school records, and qualification certificate issued to him. It was noted therein that the correction of date of birth in the SSLC book would not necessarily entail alteration of date of birth in service records for which the petitioner should apply to the authorities concerned. 5. It was noted therein that the correction of date of birth in the SSLC book would not necessarily entail alteration of date of birth in service records for which the petitioner should apply to the authorities concerned. 5. A few days before retirement, petitioner submitted an application dated 17.3.1998 before the Government in accordance with Government order dated 30.12.1991, for carrying out the correction of date of birth in the service records. Those who wanted to apply for Correction of date of birth in the service records had to apply for the same in accordance with the above mentioned Government order on or before 30.12.1992, Government order specifically stated that applications for condonation of delay and for entertainment of applications in relaxation of the condition regarding time-limit should be summarily rejected. 6. Above facts reveal that petitioner did not submit his application in time, in accordance with the Government order. No power is also vested on the Government as per the Government order for condonation of delay and to entertain any application in relaxation of the condition regarding time limit. In other words, it is specifically stated in the said Government order that applications for condonation of delay and for entertainment of applications in relaxation of the condition regarding time limit shall be summarily rejected. 7. Government issued the order in the nature of G. O.P. No. 45/91 /P & ARD dated 30.12.1991 after taking note of its past experience. Government noted the growing tendency on the part of the Government employees to get the date of birth corrected when they are about to retire from service. It was felt that this tendency had to be discouraged. It was pointed out that the need for correction should not arise at all once one's date of birth is entered in the service book because, it is the date furnished by him for selection to the post and it is again based on the proof thereof furnished by the employee himself that the entry, is made. It was pointed out that the need for correction should not arise at all once one's date of birth is entered in the service book because, it is the date furnished by him for selection to the post and it is again based on the proof thereof furnished by the employee himself that the entry, is made. As correctly stated by the Government in its Government order dated 30.12.1991, one realises his/her date of birth on a number of occasions in his/her life, such as the moment he/she gets his/her SSLC or secures extract from school admission Register, when he/she registers his/her name in the Employment Exchange, applies for higher studies, or furnishes the date of birth in the very application that leads to his/her entry into Government service. Thus, one's date of birth is entered in his service book after full realisation thereof by that individual over a reasonably long period. The employees also sign the service book and thus get an opportunity to verify whether the date is correctly entered in their service book. Therefore, there is no rationale in allowing the correction at all. Inspite of all this, Government felt that an opportunity could be granted during the initial periods of one's service to make corrections in bona fide cases. Therefore, in the case of those who have already crossed the time-limit of five years, one year time from the date of the Government order was allowed, provided they apply beyond the two year period preceding retirement, reckoned with reference to the date of birth as recorded in the service book. Going by the terms of the Government order, it is evident that Government intended to apply the said order strictly. Government order itself says that all applications for condonation of delay and for entertainment of application in relaxation of the condition regarding time-limit shall be summarily rejected. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had applied for correction of date of birth in the school records on 30.12.1992 after getting the delay condoled Government. According to him, the matter was kept pending in the office of the Commissioner for Government Examinations from 30.12.1992 till 11.3.1998. Therefore, the delay occurred in the office of the Commissioner for Government Examinations shall not be a ground for not entertaining the application of the petitioner under Government order dated 30.12.1991. According to him, the matter was kept pending in the office of the Commissioner for Government Examinations from 30.12.1992 till 11.3.1998. Therefore, the delay occurred in the office of the Commissioner for Government Examinations shall not be a ground for not entertaining the application of the petitioner under Government order dated 30.12.1991. I am of the view that this contention cannot be accepted. It is pertinent to note even before issuance of Government order dated 30.12.1991, various other Government Order and Circulars held the field, such as circular No.11980/SC3/87/P & ARD dated 3.12.1987, Circular No. 6644/ADV/ C3/ 88/P & ARD dated 24.10.1988 and G.O. (P) No. 26/91 f P & ARD dated 27.8.1991. Petitioner should have availed of the benefit of those circulars and Government orders and could have got the SSLC Book corrected. Petitioner did not take any step even on the basis of those circulars and Government orders. Only after issuance of Government order dated 30.12.1991, petitioner for the first time thought of getting his date of birth corrected in the SSLC Book. Going by the said Government order, Government has categorically stated that belated applications would not be entertained, and the same would be summarily rejected. Apart from the fact that petitioner did not challenge the said Government Order, no statutory right is vested in the employee to get his service book corrected. Ext. P1 is only a concession granted by the Government, and Government is bound by the terms and conditions contained in the said order. Evidently, the conditions mentioned in the Government order dated 30.12.1991 have not been complied with by the petitioner. When a concession is granted by the Government through an administrative order, needless to say that the employee who seeks the benefit of the said Government order should strictly comply with the terms and conditions enumerated in the said order. 9. Even though the Government order was issued as early as on 30.12.1991, and petitioner submitted an application before the Commissioner for Government Examinations for correction of date of birth in the SSLC Book only on 31.12.1992, he submitted the application before the Government only on 17.3.1998, a few days before the date of his retirement, for correction of his date of birth in the service records. Consequently, his application before the Government was hopelessly time-barred. Consequently, his application before the Government was hopelessly time-barred. There was no provision in the Government order to condone the delay or to entertain belated applications. In fact, Government order says that belated applications would be summarily rejected. 10. This Court had occasion to consider the scope of the said Government order dated 30.12.1991 in P. V. Varghesev. State of Kerala (1997) 1 KLJ 677. While dealing with the said case, this Court held as follows: "As far as the correction of date of birth in the service records is concerned, it is imperative tr ,ri i'-. with corrected SSLC Book should be submitted within one year from the date of the Government order. The necessity for following the said procedure is discernible from the order itself. Otherwise, it is possible for the employees to apply for correction of date of birth in the SSLC book before the Commissioner fo Government Examinations and wait till the fag end of their career. As I have already stated the date of birth in the service records of an employee has got great significance not only for him but also for others who are in service. Promotion chance of juniors depend upon retirement of seniors. If the date of birth is corrected at the fag end of one's career, promotion chances of others in the establishment would be affected. They might have joined service on the basis that the senior would retire on a given date and that would open up promotional avenues to them. The above mentioned principle would indicate the fact that the Government order which was accepted by the Board has to be followed strictly." An appeal was filed against the judgment in P. V. Varghese's case as W.A. No. 1143 of 1997, which was dismissed by a Division Bench and the matter was taken in appeal before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 15657/97. SLP was also dismissed. The practice of submitted application for correction of date of birth in the service records at the fag end of one's career was deprecated by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. T. V. Gopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302. SLP was also dismissed. The practice of submitted application for correction of date of birth in the service records at the fag end of one's career was deprecated by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. T. V. Gopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302. Supreme Court ordered that a Government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service register. Supreme Court also in Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar, (1995) 4 SCC 172 held that a sudden and belated change may upset the legitimate expectation of others who may have joined service hoping that on the retirement of senior on the due date there would be an upward movement in the hierarchy. In fact it visits the juniors with irreparable injury, and they would be denied promotions. Supreme Court in its recent decision in Union of India v. C. Ramaswamy, (1997) 4 SCC 647 held as follows: "In matters relating to appointment to service, various factors are taken into consideration before making a selection or an appointment. One of the relevant circumstances is the age of the person who is sought to be appointed. It may not be possible to conclusively prove mat an advantage had been gained by representing a date of birth which is different than that which is later sought to be incorporated. But it will not be unreasonable to presume that when a candidate at the first instance communicates a particular date of birth, there is obviously his intention that his age calculated on the basis of that date of birth should be taken into consideration by the appointing authority for adjudging his suitability for a reasonable office. In fact, where maturity is a relevant factor to assess suitability, an older person is ordinarily considered to be more mature and, therefore, more suitable. In such a case, it cannot be said that advantage is not obtained by a person because of an earlier date of birth, if he subsequently claims to be younger in age, after taking that advantage. In such a situation, it would be against public policy to permit such a change to enable longer benefit to the person concerned. In such a case, it cannot be said that advantage is not obtained by a person because of an earlier date of birth, if he subsequently claims to be younger in age, after taking that advantage. In such a situation, it would be against public policy to permit such a change to enable longer benefit to the person concerned. This being so, it is difficult to accept the Board proposition that the principle of estoppel would not apply in such a case where the age of a person who is sought to be appointed may be a relevant consideration to assess his suitability". It is evident from the above mentioned principle laid down by the Supreme Court, in the absence of any statutory rules, the principle of estoppel would also apply when an application is submitted by a Government employee for carrying out the correction of date of birth in his service records. It is not disputed that there is no statutory rule in existence giving any benefit to Government employees to make an application for correction of date of birth in the service records. As already mentioned, Government have issued only an administrative order fixing time-limit for submitting application for correction of date of birth in the service records. 11. As already held by the Supreme Court, it will not be unreasonable to presume that when a candidate, at the first instance communicates a particular date of birth, there is obviously his intention that his age calculated on the basis of that date of birth should be taken into consideration by the appointing authority for adjudging his suitability for a responsible office. In fact, where maturity is a relevant factor to assess suitability, an older person is ordinarily considered to be more mature and therefore, more suitable. In such a case, it cannot be said that advantage is hot obtained by a person because of an earlier date of birth, if he subsequently claims to be younger in age, after taking that advantage. In such a situation, it would be against public policy to permit such a change to enable longer benefit to the person concerned. 12. In such a case, it cannot be said that advantage is hot obtained by a person because of an earlier date of birth, if he subsequently claims to be younger in age, after taking that advantage. In such a situation, it would be against public policy to permit such a change to enable longer benefit to the person concerned. 12. Therefore, in the absence of any statutory rule, petitioner, having once given his date of birth in the service records as his correct date of birth, and got entry into Government service, after undergoing a selection process, cannot later contend that the date of birth given by him earlier is not the correct date of birth. In other words, he is estopped from contending so. In C. Ramaswamy's case (supra), Supreme Court has gone to the extent of saying that in the absence of statutory rule, the principle of estoppel would apply and the authorities concerned would be justified in declining to alter the date of birth. If such a decision is challenged, the Court also ought not to grant any relief even if it is shown that the date of birth as originally recorded was incorrect because the candidate concerned represented a different date of birth to be taken into consideration obviously with a view that would be to his advantage. Once having secured entry into service, possibility in preference to other candidates, then the principle of estoppel would clearly be applicable and relief of change of date of birth can be legitimately denied. While holding so, the Supreme Court overruled the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Manak Chand Vaidya v. State of H.P. (1976) 1 SLR 402. 13. Counsel for the petitioner brought to my knowledge a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 493 of 1991. It is pertinent to note that Division Bench had no occasion to consider the scope of G.O.P. No. 45/91/P & ARD dated 30.12.1991, and also the various decisions of the Supreme Court referred to hereinbefore. The decision of the Division Bench was rendered on a different set of facts, and also on the basis of the Government orders then in force. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality in the Government rejecting the petitioner's application following the Government order dated 30.12.1991. The decision of the Division Bench was rendered on a different set of facts, and also on the basis of the Government orders then in force. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality in the Government rejecting the petitioner's application following the Government order dated 30.12.1991. Writ Petition, therefore, lacks merits, and the same is dismissed in limine.