Judgment :- The petitioner filed the above writ petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the second respondent herein in connection with the order passed by him Memo.No.00632/178/Adm.1(2)/F.AS/2000 dated 24.04.2000 and quash the same and direct the respondents to alter the date of birth of the petitioner in the service records of the petitioner from 1.1.1948 to 31.12.1948 and consequently allow him to continue in service on the basis of the date of birth with all monetary and service benefits. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows: The petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant by direct recruitment on merits and he joined services on 17.05.1971 and was promoted to the post of Assistant on 03.12.1980 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Accounts Supervisor on 31.03.1997. At the time of joining service, he has given his date of birth as 01.01.1948 as found in the S.S.L.C. Certificate. While so, he filed an application on 16.03.2000 for altering his date of birth as 31.12.1948 instead of 1.1.1948 and the same was rejected by the department on 24.04.2001 on the ground that the application has been filed after five years from the date of entering into service and as per Regulation 110 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board that was not permissible. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The respondents filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the petitioner made application dated 16.03.2000 to the second respondent for alteration of the date of birth of the petitioner as 31.12.1948 and the second respondent informed the petitioner in memo dated 24.4.2000 that application to alter the date of birth as entered in the records of the Board shall be entertained only if such an application is made within five years from the date of entering into service. He entered into the service of the Board as Junior Assistant on 12.05.1971 and the date of claiming such correction lapses on 16.05.1976 itself. He entered into the service of the Board as Junior Assistant on 12.05.1971 and the date of claiming such correction lapses on 16.05.1976 itself. It is further stated that an amendment has been issued to the service regulation 110 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 13.08.1993 that any application received five years after entering into service or any application which is not supported by entries in S.S.L.C., School, College or University records, birth extract from records of local bodies or military discharge service, shall be summarily rejected, provided that the application for alteration of date of birth of a person who entered into service prior to 24.01.19961 shall be submitted atleast one year before the date of his retirement reckoned with reference to the official records; that the petitioner has not applied for alteration of date of birth within five years of entering into the Board's service as such the date of birth as taken from the S.S.L.C. Book of the petitioner as 01.01.1948 is correct and binding. The belated request of the petitioner was rightly rejected. The petitioner has joined duty in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board only on 17.05.1971 and the alteration of the date of birth of the person who entered with Board's service prior to 24.01.1961 is only applicable as per Board's instructions dated 13.08.1993 and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of Service Regulation 110 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is similar to Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinates Service Rules. According to that rule, when an application has been filed, special enquiry has to be conducted and report should be obtained. Instead of following that procedure, the department has rejected the application of the petitioner at the threshold itself. Therefore, the impugned order is not legally sustainable and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents Board has submitted that as per the Board's regulation 110, unless an application with necessary particulars is filed within five years form the date of joining service, such application cannot be entertained. Therefore, the impugned order is not legally sustainable and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents Board has submitted that as per the Board's regulation 110, unless an application with necessary particulars is filed within five years form the date of joining service, such application cannot be entertained. A similar case has been considered by this Court in W.P.No.4944 of 1999 by judgment dated 06.02.2003, wherein E.Padmanabhan,J. passed the said order based on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Venugopal reported in 1994 (6) sec 302 wherein the Supreme Court has reiterated the limitation within which an application has to be made. 7. In the present case, the application has been made after the expiry of five years, since the application has been made admittedly after the expiry of five years, rejection of the application by the Board is legally correct. 8. But if the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, this rejection has to be done after conducting enquiry and after completing all the formalities, ultimately, it could have been rejected on the ground that it is filed after the expiry of five years. Therefore, no purpose would have been served by conducting enquiry as contemplated under Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinates Rules. In this view of the matter, the impugned order can not be said to be illegal and it is perfectly correct. 9. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs.