Judgment :- M. Ramachandran, J. Ext. P14 is under challenge in this Original Petition. As the petitioner has failed to produce the Birth Certificate, his request for correction of date of birth in the records stand rejected by the Government. As matters stand now, as per the official records, the petitioner's date of birth is 7.5.1946. Sri. T.M. Abdul Latiff, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in the matter of correction of clerical errors the standards adopted are different and the Government had omitted to bear in mind the above aspects. He refers to Ext. P15 which is a proforma of application for correction or alteration of date of birth. However, no orders drawing a distinction as between the two varieties of claims had been made available. 2. I had heard the learned Government Pleader. He opposes the Original Petition by pointing out that this Court had exercised the jurisdiction once by issuing a direction to the Government to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner and by Ext. P14 the Government had passed appropriate orders in the matter. It is also pointed out that on an earlier occasion also, by Ext. Pll, the request had been turned down. It was stressed that the petitioner has agitated the matter at the fag end of his service and such conduct has been severely deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As such it is submitted that the writ petitioner deserves no relief. 3. But, nevertheless in a case where the contention is that a clerical error has occurred due to no fault of the person concerned, a different yardstick deserves to be employed. The Government order, referred to by the Government Pleader, concerns situations where the records pertaining to an officer is sought to be substituted by making available altogether fresh materials. In such cases, it is indeed necessary and obligatory that the claims are assessed with utmost strictness, and the officer concerned has to prove his claims beyond any shadow of doubt. 4. But that may not be the case, where a person stands to prejudice because of clerical errors while his date of birth is re-recorded from an authentic record, as in the present case. The petitioner relies on records relating to his primary classes. In letters and figures, it is shown as 3.1.1948. In the subsequent transfer certificate also the same date has appeared. The petitioner relies on records relating to his primary classes. In letters and figures, it is shown as 3.1.1948. In the subsequent transfer certificate also the same date has appeared. But when a subsequent certificate was issued on 17.5.1963, the date of birth is seen recorded as 7.5.1946. At this time, it may not be possible to trace the responsibility as to why and how this mistake crept in. 5. It will be unjust to treat such cases on par with other cases where claims are urged on extraneous materials. One cannot ignore authentic records, and still require the incumbent to produce birth certificate, which might or might not exist. It may be asking for the impossible. Therefore, as far as the petitioner is concerned, the enquiry has to be confined as to whether the basic certificates produced by him showing his earliest recorded date are authentic. If they are genuine, he normally will be entitled to get the date appropriately corrected. I am fortified in making this observation, because Ext. PIS, the form prescribed by the Government, separately deals with the contingency of correction of clerical error. 6. The petitioner has submitted a review petition before the Government (Ext. P15 in C.M.P. No. 23804 of 2001) requesting for indulgence. I direct the Government to take note of the petitioner's submissions, as has been referred to in the earlier paragraph of this judgment, and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. It is made clear that if ultimately he gets a change of date, the Government may further examine how far benefit arising from the position could be translated to his service as well. The Original Petition is disposed of with the above directions.