Judgment :- The petitioner's requests for renewal of his Competent Person Certificate under Rule 2-A of the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, having been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is aged more than 62 years, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition contending that the authority has failed to exercise the power vested in it to relax the age and that in any event the age of the petitioner is less than 62 years having regard to the extract from the Register of Births, produced by the petitioner and, therefore, the certificate should have been renewed for the year 2001-2002. 2. As regards the first contention that the authority is vested with the power to relax the age requirement, that contention is only to be stated to be rejected having regard to the language of Rule 2-A of the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules 1960. Rule 2A deals with competent persons. The third proviso thereunder reads thus: "Provided also that the "Competent Person" recognised under this provision shall not be above the age of sixty-two and shall be physically fit for the purpose of carrying out the tests, examinations and inspections." 3. The power to relax contained in the first proviso is not with reference to age but with reference to qualifications. The qualifications are set out in the Schedule annexed to the Rule. The qualification so set out is in addition to the ceiling on age referred to in the third proviso. The ceiling on age is not part of the qualification for the purpose of the Rule. The first contention, therefore, fails. 4. The second submission is that the extract from the Register of Births is conclusive evidence and the authority is bound to act in accordance with the same. In the communication sent to the petitioner by the 1st respondent dated 15.10.2002 reference is made to as many as six documents in all of which the petitioner had given his date of birth as 3.12.1939. The documents mentioned therein include his application dated 8.3.1999, the Transfer Certificate sent to the Guindy Engineering College, his application of 23.2.2000 as also of 26.2.2001 and a letter issued by the Joint Managing Director of the TWAD Board, dated, 29.11.1990, wherein it had been stated that the petitioner had been working as Assistant Executive Engineer and had completed fifty years of age. 5. 5. In the Birth Certificate, on which the petitioner places reliance, it is shown that the entry showing the petitioner's date of birth as 22.11.1942 was made only on 31.7.1984. That entry appears to have been made pursuant to an order which the petitioner had obtained from the Judicial Magistrate in accordance with Sections 12 and 17 of the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. 6. That Act of 1969 does not anywhere provide that the registration made thereunder is conclusive proof of the date of birth or of the date of death. Counsel relied on Section 35 of the Evidence Act. That Section also does not so provide. All that it provides is that entries made by a public servant in public records in the discharge of his official duty is itself a relevant fact. Relevancy of the fact is not the same as conclusiveness of proof. The fact that the entry has been made in a Public Register by a public servant, in the course of discharge of his official duties does not by itself has the effect of proving the correctness of the entry that was made. 7. The extract from the Register of Births and Deaths is indeed a relevant document. But whether that document should be preferred in the context of a given set of facts is a matter for decision having regard to the other facts of the case. In a case like this, where admittedly the petitioner had himself declared repeatedly that his date of birth was 3.12.1939 had left the service of the employer after he had completed the age of fifty with reference to that date of birth and several decades after his birth had sought to have an entry made in the Register of Births and Deaths, pursuant to an order obtained in a proceedings in which there was no contest, the reliance placed by the authorities on the other documents as being more reliable as to his date of birth cannot be said to be violative of any law. The rejection of the petitioner's application was on grounds which were relevant and is not vitiated by any illegality. The writ petition is dismissed.