Judgment :- The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. 2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit to declare that his correct date of birth is 20th September 1936 and not 29th September 1931 and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants and their officials to make suitable corrections regarding the said date of birth in the plaintiff's service register, SSLC book, etc. The plaintiff was recruited through Tamilnadu Public Service Commission as Statistical Officer in the Department of Statistics at Madras. The 2nd defendant is the Head of the Department. The plaintiff is the third son of one Sivasamy Onthiriyar of Kalvikudi Village through his wife Sethu Ammal. Kalyana Sundaram was the eldest brother and Uthirapathy was the elder brother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's parents were illiterate and they belong to Backward Kallar Community. When the plaintiff was admitted in the school, they were not careful enough to give the correct date of birth and they were also not aware of the consequences of the mistake. The plaintiff was born to the parents on 20th September 1936, but his date of birth was wrongly given as 29th September 1931 in the School records by his eldest brother at the time of admission. Without verifying the correctness of the same, the eldest brother had also signed in the age declaration form in SSLC book. The plaintiff sometime back applied to the concerned Registrar of Births about the alleged birth on 29.09.1931, and to his surprise he found that there was no entry for the birth of a male child to the plaintiff's parents on 29.09.1931. Kalyanasundaram was born on 22.06.1929 and his name is entered in the register of births. Uthirapathi was born on 01.05.1932, but there is no entry in the register of births. The plaintiff while searching for some documents in connection with the family members, found out the SSLC book of Uthirapathi and then he realised the mistake. The plaintiff later found out his horoscope in palmirah leaves which proved that the plaintiff was born only in 1936. The plaintiff submitted an application to the 1st defendant on 25.03.1986 to correct his date of birth as 20th September 1936 and the Tahsildar of Valangaiman also made due enquiry regarding the same and was satisfied about the correctness. The plaintiff also requested the 2nd defendant to send a reply for his letter. The plaintiff submitted an application to the 1st defendant on 25.03.1986 to correct his date of birth as 20th September 1936 and the Tahsildar of Valangaiman also made due enquiry regarding the same and was satisfied about the correctness. The plaintiff also requested the 2nd defendant to send a reply for his letter. For reasons known, the 2nd defendant rejected the plaintiff's application. The plaintiff sent registered notice dated 13.09.1987 to all the defendants under section 80 of Civil Procedure Code. Hence the suit. The 2nd defendant contended that the plaintiff submitted an application on 25.03.1986 to the Collector of Thanjavur for alteration of date of birth and claimed his date of birth as 20.09.1936 instead of 29.09.1931, which was given in the school and office records. The Collector called for a report. Subsequently, they were forwarded to the Special Commissioner, Revenue Administration. After examining the case and scrutinizing the documents, the application of plaintiff for alteration of date of birth was rejected as it was belated and did not satisfy Rule 49(c) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. The plaintiff was duly informed. After lapse of 25 years from the date of entry in the Government Service, the plaintiff has chosen to file a suit. He is due to retire on superannuation on 30.09.1989 after completing 58 years of age. The 3rd defendant stated that as per the Subsidiary Rule 5 of SSLC Scheme, request for alternation of date of birth cannot be considered after the pupil has completed his school course, sat for the SSLC public examination marks entered and the certificate completed. The parents could have taken necessary steps to rectify the mistake at the time of signing the declaration in the SSLC book. The plaintiff is no longer a student of any school coming under them. The plaintiff has not reported the fact in the plaint regarding the date of his admission and the age at the time of admission in the School. The suit is also barred by limitation. The suit as framed is not maintainable. The trial court framed 6issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked and on the side of the defendants, neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked. The suit is also barred by limitation. The suit as framed is not maintainable. The trial court framed 6issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked and on the side of the defendants, neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked. The trial court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff and aggrieved against this, the defendants preferred A.S.No.71 of 1989 on the file of Sub Court, Kumbakonam and the learned Judge after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved against this, the plaintiff has come forward with the present second appeal. 3. At the time of admission of the second appeal, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration: (1) Whether the finding of the Collector that the correct date of birth of the appellant is 20.09.1936 does not constitute admission binding on the respondents and whether they are not estopped from contending to the contrary? (2) Whether the finding rendered purely on surmises and conjectures cannot be interfered with under section 100 C.P.C. ? (3) Whether the failure to consider an exhibit does not involve a question of law sufficient to call for interference under section 100 C.P.C.? 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The plaintiff filed the suit to declare his date of birth as 20th September 1936 instead of 29th September 1931. He was recruited as Statistical Officer in the Department of Statistics through Tamilnadu Public Service Commission. According to the plaintiff, his eldest brother Kalyanasundaram was born on 22nd June 1929 and his elder brother Uthirapathi was born on 1st May 1932. The plaintiff claims himself to be the third son of his parents. Since the parents were illiterate, the eldest brother admitted him in the School giving the date of birth as 29.09.1931. The plaintiff only subsequently came to know about the mistake and he had also found out his horoscope in palmirah leaves. He gave a representation to the 1st defendant for the first time only on 25.03.1986. It is, therefore, evidently clear that the first representation for change of date of birth was given 25 years after entering in the service. 6. He gave a representation to the 1st defendant for the first time only on 25.03.1986. It is, therefore, evidently clear that the first representation for change of date of birth was given 25 years after entering in the service. 6. The trial court, no doubt, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff, whereas the lower appellate court reversed the said finding. It has been clearly laid down in State of Tamil Nadu ..vs.. T.V.Venugopalan ( (1994) 6 SCC 302 ) that "The Supreme Court, repeatedly, been holding that inordinate delay in making the application is itself a ground for rejecting the correction of date of birth. The 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. It is common phenomenon that just before superannuation, an application would be made to the Tribunal or court just to gain time to continue in service and the Tribunal or courts are unfortunately unduly liberal in entertaining and allowing the government employees or public employees to remain in office, which is adding an impetus to resort to the fabrication of the record and place reliance thereon and seek the authority to correct it. When rejected, on grounds of technicalities, question them and remain in office till the period claimed for, gets expired". This decision is applicable to the case on hand and it is also one of the case of such stark instance. 7. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid decision that the plaintiff had raised the issue of correction of date of birth only in the fag end of his service and the lower appellate court has given cogent reasons to reject the case. The finding arrived at by the lower appellate court is based on sound and proper materials and there is no reason to interfere in the same. 8. For the reasons stated above, the Second Appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.