Judgment : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to correct his date of birth in his Service Record as 210. 1942 instead of 27. 1940, as per the extract of Birth Register and in accordance with the procedure stipulated under Chapter IX and Chapter XXIV of the calendar of the respondent University. 2. Thecase of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: According to him, he was appointed as a Professor of the respondent University on 12. 1986. His date of birth has been entered in the Service Record as 27. 1940, on the basis of S.S.L.C. book. He obtained an extract of Birth Register from the Sub Registrar, Dharapuram on 2. 1977. He found that his correct date of birth was 210. 1942 and his parents had furnished his date of birth as 27. 1940, by mistake. The entry in the Birth Register was that, “male child” born to his parents on 210. 1942. The name of the child was given. Hence, he filed O.S.No.660 of 1980 on the file of District Munsif, Dharapuram praying for a general declaration that he is the only son of his parents and to correct his date of birth as 210. 1942. The learned District Munsif, Dharapuram granted a declaratory decree on 9. 1981. Only when he realised that the date of birth in the Service Record of the University was to be corrected, he approached the University with the copy of the order in O.S.No.660 of 1980, in the year 1993, seeking correction of his date of birth in the Service Record. There was no specific provision in the Service Rules of the University about the procedure to be followed in correcting the date of birth of a teacher till 1995. Since his application for correction of date of birth was pending with University, he sent a letter dated 111. 1995 requesting the University to correct his date of birth in accordance with the Rule adopted by the University on 23. 1995. The respondent by letter dated 29. 1996 directed him to approach the Director of School Education to correct his S.S.L.C. book. 1995 requesting the University to correct his date of birth in accordance with the Rule adopted by the University on 23. 1995. The respondent by letter dated 29. 1996 directed him to approach the Director of School Education to correct his S.S.L.C. book. Inasmuch as the procedure for correction of date of birth is now provided for under the Statutes and Ordinances issued by the University, the University is now bound to follow the procedure prescribed under the Statutes and Ordinances and cannot request him to get the S.S.L.C. book corrected as demanded by it. In such circumstances, having no other remedy has filed the above writ petition. 3. The respondent filed a counter affidavit disputing various averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner who entered service in the year 1974 filed an application in the year 1993, requesting the University to change his date of birth from 27. 1940 to 210. 1942. He made this claim on the basis of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.660 of 1980. The said suit was filed for declaration of the date of birth of the petitioner against his mother. Even though the judgment was delivered as early as in the year 1981 and certified copy was also obtained in 1981, the said judgment was brought to the notice of the University only in 1993. Even though the University adopted Rules 49 and 49-A of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) only in the year 1995, since he had entered the service of the University even in the year 1974 and even after obtaining decree in the year 1981, he did not care to effect correction in the Service Book. The courts have taken a view that the application is to be made within five years of entering into service. With these averments they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. In the additional counter affidavit it is once again reiterated that the petitioners request for correction of his date of birth is considered only if he correct the entry in S.S.L.C. book, which is the basis for entry relating to the date of birth of the petitioner in the Service Record. In the present case, the petitioner himself has admitted that the Director of School Education has rejected the correction of his date of birth in his S.S.L.C. book. In the present case, the petitioner himself has admitted that the Director of School Education has rejected the correction of his date of birth in his S.S.L.C. book. In the above circumstance, the petitioner is not entitled to get his date of birth altered in the Service Records. 4. The petitioner has also filed a reply to the counter affidavit stating that, in view of adoption of the Rules 49 and 49-A with effect from 23. 1995, the respondent ought to have considered the representation of the petitioner. 5. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned senior counsel for petitioner as well as respondent. 6. There is no dispute that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent University in the year 1974. No doubt, he was appointed as a Professor of the University on 12. 1986. His date of birth has been entered in the Service Record as 27. 1940 on the basis of entry in S.S.L.C. book. According to him, he obtained the extract of Birth Register from the Sub-Registrar, Dharapuram on 2. 1977 and he found that his correct date of birth was 210. 1942 and not 27. 1940 as furnished by his parents to the School authorities. In view of the above mistake and also of the fact that, in the extract of Birth Register it is merely mentioned “a male child” born to his parents on 210. 1942 and name of the child was not given, the petitioner filed civil suit in O.S.No.660 of 1980 on the file of District Munsif, Dharapuram for general declaration that he is the only son of his parents and his correct date of birth is 210. 1942. No doubt, in the said suit her mother alone was impleaded as defendant. Neither the school authorities nor his employer viz., University of Madras were impleaded as parties in the said suit. The learned District Munsif, Dharapuram has granted declaratory decree on 9. 1981. No doubt, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice that Ex-village Munsif was examined as P.W.1 to show that petitioner is the only son of his parents. However, the fact remains, even after getting a decree on 9. The learned District Munsif, Dharapuram has granted declaratory decree on 9. 1981. No doubt, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice that Ex-village Munsif was examined as P.W.1 to show that petitioner is the only son of his parents. However, the fact remains, even after getting a decree on 9. 1981 and getting the certified copy of the same even in the same year, the petitioner failed to take any effective steps to correct his date of birth as entered in the Service Register, till 1993. It is true that, Rules 49 and 49-A of the Rules which speaks about the procedure to be followed in correcting the date of birth were adopted as addition to Ordinance 7 of Chapter IX, and Chapter XXIV of Volume I, University Calendar, 1985, only in the Syndicate meeting held on 111. 1994 and the same was adopted by the Senate of the University in the annual meeting held on 23. 1995. By pointing out that, inasmuch as the said Rules viz., 49 and 49-A were adopted by the University only on 23. 1995, it is argued that the respondent could have considered the claim of the petitioner and corrected his date of birth in the Service Register, as claimed by him. 7. Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner by pointing out Clause 7(a) (iv) of Addition to Ordinance 7 under Chapter IX, Volume I, University Calendar, 1985 would contend that, on the basis of entry in the Birth Extract, respondent ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner instead of directing him to get the date of birth corrected in the S.S.L.C. book. It is true that on receipt of representation from the petitioner in the year 1993, the respondent after taking note of the fact that the University was not a party in the declaratory decree and also of the fact that the petitioner has not corrected his date of birth in the S.S.L.C. book, directed him to make necessary application before the Director of School Education for correction of his date of birth in the S.S.L.C. book and thereafter approach the respondent for further action. It is clear that, for correction of date of birth, the person has to make an application within five years from the date of entry into service and his application must be supported by entries in S.S.L.C., Book or University records, Birth extract from the records of Local Bodies or Military Discharge Certificate. I have already stated that the petitioner joined the service of the University in the year 1974. He secured decree in the year 1981 and he made his application for correction of his date of birth only in the year 1993. Admittedly, the petitioner had secured Birth Extract from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Dharapuram even on 2. 1977. Since in the Birth Extract the name of the child was not mentioned, according to him he filed declaratory suit in O.S.No.660 of 1980 impleading his mother alone as party-defendant. As stated earlier, even the Court below has granted decree on 9. 1981 and he also obtained certified copy in the year 1981, hence there is no acceptable explanation for not making necessary application for correction immediately thereafter. In the light of the above factual position, I am unable to accept the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. 8. With regard to the contention that the respondent had adopted Rules 49 and 49-A of the Rules with effect from 23. 1995, as per the said Rules, it is open to the petitioner to get his date of birth corrected within five years from the date of coming into force. In this regard, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has very much relied on the decisions reported in, “1. National Airport Authority v. M.A.Wahab National Airport Authority v. M.A.Wahab National Airport Authority v. M.A.Wahab , (1994)4 S.L.R. 621 and 2. State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V.Venugopalan State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V.Venugopalan State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V.Venugopalan , (1994)6 S.C.C. 302 : (1994)4 S.L.R. 628. National Airport Authority v. M.A.Wahab National Airport Authority v. M.A.Wahab National Airport Authority v. M.A.Wahab , (1994)4 S.L.R. 621 and 2. State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V.Venugopalan State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V.Venugopalan State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V.Venugopalan , (1994)6 S.C.C. 302 : (1994)4 S.L.R. 628. In National Airport Authority v. M.A.Wahab National Airport Authority v. M.A.Wahab National Airport Authority v. M.A.Wahab , (1994)4 S.L.R. 621, their Lordships after considering Fundamental Rules 56(m) and Note 5, have observed that, “Those Government servants who were already in service before 1979 for a period of more than five years and who intended to have their date of birth corrected after 1979, could seek the correction of date of birth within reasonable time after 1979 but in any event not later than five years after the coming into force of the amendment in 1979.” 9. In the latter case viz., State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V.Venugopalan viz., State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V.Venugopalan viz., State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V.Venugopalan , (1994)6 S.C.C. 302 : (1994)4 S.L.R. 628, their Lordships have held that, “…The application for correction of the date of birth of an in service employee should be made within five years when the Rules had come into force.” It is true that, by applying the above decisions, it is open to the petitioner to make necessary application for correction of his date of birth within five years after adoption of Rules 49 and 49-A. I have already stated that, even though the petitioner had entered into the service of the University in the year 1974, even after getting decree in the year 1981, till 1993 the petitioner had not taken any steps to get the date of birth corrected in the Service Register. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent, nothing prevented him from making proper application at the appropriate time. In this regard, he very much relied on the following decisions: “(i) Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar Burn Standard Co. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent, nothing prevented him from making proper application at the appropriate time. In this regard, he very much relied on the following decisions: “(i) Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar , A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1499; (ii) Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Bhagwan V.Lahane Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Bhagwan V.Lahane Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Bhagwan V.Lahane , A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1986; (iii) Director of Technical Education v. K.Sitadevi Director of Technical Education v. K.Sitadevi Director of Technical Education v. K.Sitadevi , (1991)2 S.C.C. (Supp.) 387; (iv) Secretary and Commissioner v. R.Kirubakaran Secretary and Commissioner v. R.Kirubakaran Secretary and Commissioner v. R.Kirubakaran , (1994)1 S.C.C. (Supp.) 155 and (v) State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V.Venugopalan State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V.Venugopalan State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V.Venugopalan , (1994)4 S.L.R. 628: (1994)6 S.C.C. 302 . .10. In Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar , A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1499, their Lordships have concluded: .“10. …Therefore, we have no hesitation, in holding that ordinarily High Court should not, in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction entertain a writ application/petition filed by an employee of the Government or its instrumentality, towards the fag end of his service, seeking correction of his date of birth entered in his “Service and Leave Record” or Service Register with the avowed object of continuing in service beyond the normal period of his retirement.” .11. In Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Bhagwan V.Lahane Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Bhagwan V.Lahane Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Bhagwan V.Lahane , A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1986, their Lordships have explained the importance of entries in the S.S.L.C. book. In that case the applicant therein got the entry in the birth register corrected, then obtained a copy of it and produced the same before the authority. He has not corrected the entry in the S.S.L.C. book, for that the Lordships have held: .“6. …Once it was found to be doubtful, the authorities were right in not correcting his birth date in the service book. Admittedly, the School Leaving Certificate was produced by the respondent and the entry in the service book was made on the basis of the birth date mentioned therein. …Once it was found to be doubtful, the authorities were right in not correcting his birth date in the service book. Admittedly, the School Leaving Certificate was produced by the respondent and the entry in the service book was made on the basis of the birth date mentioned therein. As he failed to show that the said entry was made due to want of care on the part of some other person or that it was an obvious clerical error, the Tribunal ought not to have directed the appellant to correct the same.” .12. In Director of Technical Education v. K.Sitadevi Director of Technical Education v. K.Sitadevi Director of Technical Education v. K.Sitadevi , (1991)2 S.C.C. (Supp.) 387, with regard to the decree without a State or the employer not being a party, their Lordships have held: .“6. We, therefore, clarify the legal position that a decree without the State being a party is not binding on the employer (the State) in the matter of determination of the date of birth…” 13. In Secretary and Commissioner v. R.Kirubakaran Secretary and Commissioner v. R.Kirubakaran Secretary and Commissioner v. R.Kirubakaran , (1994)1 S.C.C. (Supp.) 155 their Lordships have held: “7. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their promotions for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such unless a clear case, on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the court or the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be filed within the time, which can be held to be reasonable. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the court or the tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their dates of birth in the service books. By this process, it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately their applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after the date of superannuation. The court or the tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief for continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior.” 14. The court or the tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief for continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior.” 14. In State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V.Venugopalan State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V.Venugopalan State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V.Venugopalan , (1994)4 S.L.R. 628: (1994)6 S.C.C. 302 their Lordships have held that: “7. …the inordinate delay in making the application is itself a ground for rejecting the correction of date of birth.” 15. In the light of the catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of the admitted factual position that the petitioner entered in service of the University in the year 1974 and obtained declaratory decree in the year 1981 and in the absence of any valid reason for delay in making petition for correction of date of birth in the service register till 1993, the request of the petitioner cannot be complied with. The proceedings of the Director of School Education dated 110. 1981 show that the Director of School Education was not made a party in O.S.No.660 of 1980 and in the absence of any direction in the decree to the Director of School Education for correction of date of birth, they rejected the request of the petitioner. The said communication was issued pursuant to the request of the petitioner dated 110. 1981. The said proceedings find place at page 9 of the additional typed set of papers filed by the petitioner. The same was once again reiterated by the Director of School Education in his subsequent proceedings dated 4. 1982 and again on 211. 1995. 16. Taking note of all the above aspects and also of the fact that the petitioner has already retired from service, the court does not find any valid reasons to issue direction to the respondent for correction of his date of birth in the Service Record as claimed by the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.