ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition was filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent-Director of School Education, government of Andhra Pradesh to alter the date of birth of the petitioner from 10-12-1957 to 20-12-1960 in accordance with the judgment and decree dated 6-7-1984 in o. S. No. 535 of 1983 on the file of the principal District Munsif, Tenali and to further direct the first respondent viz. The registrar, Sri Venkateswara University, tirupathi, to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the Service Register and pass such other orders which are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, ( 2 ) THE petitioner submits that he holds a degree of M. Sc, M. Phill. , and Ph. D. , and joined the service of the first respondent as a Lecturer in Geology on 9-11-1989 and his date of birth was entered in the S. S. C. register as 10-12-1957, according to the statement made by his illiterate father, who is an agriculturist, who gave the date of birth while admitting him in school. The petitioner submits that the same date of birth was given to his elder brother by his father, that the petitioner, even before entering into the service of the first respondent, filed O. S. No. 535 of 1983 before the Principal District Munsif, Tenali, guntur District for a declaration that he was born on 20-10-1960 and not on 10-12-1957. After considering the matter, the learned magistrate has decreed the suit declaring that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 20-12-1960 and passed the decree. Then he made an application to the district Educational Officer on 13-1-1988 requesting him to make necessary correction in the S. S. C. register and enter the correct date of birth as 20-10-1960. Thereafter, pending consideration of correction of date of birth in the educational records, he joined the services of the first respondent on 9-11-1989, but his date of birth in the Service Register was entered as 10-12-1957. Thereafter on 11-3-1991, the district Educational Officer, Guntur forwarded his application to the Director of school Education. The petitioner also sent a registered reminder to the Director of school Education and the Secretary to the education Department, Government of andhra Pradesh and the representations of the petitioner are pending consideration before the Director of School Education. Thereafter on 11-3-1991, the district Educational Officer, Guntur forwarded his application to the Director of school Education. The petitioner also sent a registered reminder to the Director of school Education and the Secretary to the education Department, Government of andhra Pradesh and the representations of the petitioner are pending consideration before the Director of School Education. Thereafter the petitioner has made a representation to the first respondent stating that due to his father s illiteracy his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 10-12-1957 in the School Records and he subsequently filed a suit to correct his date of birth as 20-12-1960 and obtaining a decree in his favour on 20-12-1960 (sic. 6-7-1984 ). ( 3 ) IN reply to the petitioner s representation, the first respondent informed the petitioner vide its letter dated 25-8-1991 that he must get his date of birth corrected in the S. S. C. register, transfer certificates of Intermediate and Degree courses and then submit the documents for taking further action in the matter. It is also further submitted by the petitioner that the first respondent has adopted the Rules issued by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 165 Fin. and Pig. Department dated 21-4-1984, known as Andhra Pradesh Public employment (Recording and Alteration of date of Birth) Rules, 1984. According to the petitioner as per the Rules, the first respondent should have considered his case for correction of date of birth in the Service register and the respondents should have seen that before entering into the service, he has obtained a decree from a competent civil Court with regard to the correct date of birth. Therefore, the inaction on the part of the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in his education records and Service Register is illegal and unconstitutional. ( 4 ) THE second respondent has not filed any counter. But the first respondent has filed counter admitting that the petitioner entered into the service of the University on 9-11-1989 as a Lecturer in Geology. As per the date of birth mentioned in the application and S. S. C. Certificate, his date of birth is 10-12-1957 and the same was recorded in the Service Register, which is opened within a month of his joining duty. The petitioner also produced attested copy of the S. S. C. record and the date of birth was entered as 10-12-1957. The petitioner also produced attested copy of the S. S. C. record and the date of birth was entered as 10-12-1957. At the time of joining service, the petitioner has not produced the copy of the decree passed by the Principal Munsif Magistrate, Tenali. The first respondent has admitted that the petitioner made a representation on 22-03. 1991 and it was considered as per the rules issued by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 165 Finance and Planning dated 21-4-1984 for correction of his date of birth. The first respondent has asserted that prior to the representation dated 22-3-1991, the petitioner never approached the respondent to correct the date of birth in his Service register. The respondent also relied on the rules that a belated request for alteration of date of birth should not be entertained. Though the petitioner has joined on 9-11-1989 and the Service Register was opened within a month of his joining, entering his date of birth as 10-12-1957, after a lapse of fifteen months, he has made representation to correct the date of birth. Therefore, following the Rules and in view of the delay in making representation by the petitioner, request of the petitioner was rejected by the first respondent. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner with bona fide intention has made several representations to the respondents, specially to the second respondent to correct his date of birth, from the date of obtaining a declaration from the principal District Munsif, Tenali on 6-7-1984 and therefore rejecting the request of the petitioner though he had a decree for the correction of date of birth is contrary to law and as such the inaction on the part of the respondents has to be held unconstitutional and detrimental to the interests of the petitioner. ( 6 ) AS seen from the material placed before me, it is evident that though the petitioner obtained a decree from a civil court declaring his date of birth as 20-12-1960 in the year 1984 itself, he did not take any steps t6 get his date of birth corrected in the school records and the service Register. Mere making repeated representations is not sufficrent to explain the delay. So far as the Rules issued by the government for correction of date of birth are concerned, sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of g. O. Ms. Mere making repeated representations is not sufficrent to explain the delay. So far as the Rules issued by the government for correction of date of birth are concerned, sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of g. O. Ms. No. 165 dated 21-4-1984 contemplates that every Government employee shall, within one month from the date on which he joins duty, makes a declaration as to his date of birth; sub- rule (2) thereof provides that on receipt of such declaration, the Head of Office or any other Officer who maintains the service records in respect of such Government employee shall after making such enquiry, as the case may deem fit, with regard to the declaration and after taking into consideration such evidence, if any, as may be adduced in respect of the said declaration, make an order within four months from the date on which the government employee joins service, determining the date of his birth; it is further provided that in cases where the date of birth as determined under sub- rule (2) herein, is different from the one declared by the Government employee concerned under sub-rule (1), he shall be given an opportunity of making a representation, before a final order is made. Sub-rule (3) of this Rule/provides that where a Government employee fails to make a declaration within the time specified in sub-rule (1), the Head of Office or the Officer who maintains the service records shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available and after giving an opportunity of making a representation to the Government employee concerned, determine the date of birth of the employee within six months from the date on which the Government employee joins service. The date of birth so determined, shall be entered in the Service record of the employee concerned duly attested by the Head of Office or the Officer who maintains the service records and the date of birth so entered shall be final and binding on the Government employee. The date of birth so determined, shall be entered in the Service record of the employee concerned duly attested by the Head of Office or the Officer who maintains the service records and the date of birth so entered shall be final and binding on the Government employee. ( 7 ) AS seen from the facts and circumstances of this case, it is evident that the petitioner has not chosen to make any representation within a period of one month, as per the Rules, to correct his date of birth in the Service Register, even though he has obtained a decree from a competent civil Court declaring his date of birth as 20-12-1960, and he slept over the matter for a period of seven years to correct his date of birth either in the school records or in his service Register. Even the subsequent Rules framed by the Government under various g. Os. prohibit making application for correction of date of birth after expiry of the period prescribed under the Rules. In view of the laches involved in this matter in seeking redressal of the grievance and for non-compliance of sub-rules (1) and (2) of rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Public employment (Recording and Alteration of date of Birth) Rules, 1984, I see no justifiable reason to grant the relief prayed for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.