Judgment :- S.K. Krishnan, J. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the fourth respondent pertaining to the Order made in O.A.No.2969 of 2003 dated 13.3.2004 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to alter the date of birth of the petitioner from 21.5.1948 to 26.6.1951 in his service records with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner is now working as Under- Secretary to the Government attached to E and F Department, Secretariat, Chennai. It is per­tinent to refer the proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the Tribunal in O.A.No.4225 of 2002 prior to the filing of O.A.No.2969 of 2003. On 12.7.2002, the Tribunal had issued necessary directions to the Commissioner of Revenue, Administration, Chepauk, Chennai­ 5, to send their report to the Government within a period of six months. The Secretary to the Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Q) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, on receipt of the report from the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai, rejected the request of the petitioner for altering the date of birth from 21.5.1948 to 26.6.1951. Aggrieved over the rejection order passed by the Secretary to the Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Q) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, the petitioner had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2969 of 2003, seeking necessary relief and the same was dismissed on 12.7.2002. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner had preferred this writ petition invoking Art.226 of the Constitution of India for the relief stated supra. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that he was born on 26.6.1951. At the time of joining the school, his father had given his date of birth as 21.5.1948 and the same was entered in the S.S.L.C. Certificate also. After finishing his graduation, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 20.2.1974. Only after two years of entering into service, he came to know that his date of birth was recorded as 21.5.1948 in the service register. Immediately, he made his representation on 20.4.1976 to the first respondent herein, for altering the date of birth as 26.6.1951. The Sub-Collector, Dindigul, on verification and enquiry found that the date of birth of the petitioner is 26.6.1951. Immediately, he made his representation on 20.4.1976 to the first respondent herein, for altering the date of birth as 26.6.1951. The Sub-Collector, Dindigul, on verification and enquiry found that the date of birth of the petitioner is 26.6.1951. Accordingly he recommended the Commissioner of Revenu Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005 second respondent herein to make necessary corrections. As the second respondent did not take any action, despite several representations made by the petitioner, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the relief sought for by the petitioner. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court by of a writ petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even though the petitioner had produced the relevant documents such as marriage invitation card of his parents birth extract of the petitioner issued by the Birth and Death Registrar's Office and the birth extract of his ' younger sister, the Tribunal rejecting the claim of the petitioner not based on valid reason and the reason stated by the Tribunal for rejecting the relief sought for by petitioner is also not sound, which is considered as an illegal one and is not at all sustainable. 5. Further the learned counsel appearing the petitioner would submit that in a similar circumstances, the Tribunal while considering applications filed by one. M. Gnanam, O.A.Nos.4283 of 1992, the Tribunal allowed the petitions in favour of the applicant Gnanam Subsequently, the Government passed an order in G.O.Ms.No. 1082, Revenue (SS.I) Department, dated 9.10.1992 ordering to rein the Government servant in service, that too the retirement. The case of the applicant Gnanam also falls within the four comers the case on hand. Such being the case, the relief granted by the Tribunal in favour of said Gnanam can also be granted in favour, the petitioner. However, without considering relevant materials as well as, the legal principles applied in the case of Gnanam, the Tribunal passed an erroneous order by dismissing petition. 6. Further the learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that the Tribunal He considering the claim of the petitioner, of appreciating the materials available the report submitted by the Sub-Collector, Dindigul, the Tribunal simply rejected the claim the petitioner by stating that if he was born in 1951, he would not have passed S.S.L.C. examination in 1965 and therefore, his claim cannot be true. Accordingly, the Tribunal also concluded that the rejection made by the third respondent is perfectly correct and justified. In this regard, a perusal of the order passed by the third respondent would reveal that the third dent while considering the relief sought the petitioner simply followed the report Special Commissioner and the Commissioner of Revenue Administration and hence third respondent has concluded that if the would have appeared for the S.S.L.C. examination during the year 1965 and entered Government service on 20.2.1974 and of birth of the petitioner as 26.6.1951is a correct one, then the petitioner would not have been eligible to appear for the S.S.L.C. examination during the year 1965, as the petitioner would have completed only 13 years and 9 months as on 1.3.1965. 7. It is further stated that such being the case, petitioner cannot claim to enjoy another 'to be in service for another three years there is no clinching evidence. In the learned senior counsel would that, when considering the claim of the petitioner, the third respondent simply followed the report of the second respondent. Inspire of the production of sufficient documents furnished by the petitioner for altering the date of birth from 21.5.1948 to 26.6.1951, the Tri­bunal had not appreciated those relevant materials and simply followed the decision of the third respondent. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal is not at all sustainable in law and is liable only to be set aside. 8. Per contra, Mr.E.Sampath Kumar, learned Government Advocate would emphasise that if the petitioner was actually born on 26.6.1951, he would not have written the S.S.L.C. examination, because at the relevant point of time, he was only thirteen years and nine months old. On this reason only, the Tribunal had rejected the claim of the petitioner and therefore, no interference could be needed by this Court to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. 9. Since the petitioner referred the case of Gnanam for consideration, it is just and necessary for us to refer the said case for arriving a just conclusion in this case. While deciding the case of Gnanam, the Tribunal has categorically concluded that the order of rejection should however be the basis for the conclusion that the applicant's representation is not acceptable. While deciding the case of Gnanam, the Tribunal has categorically concluded that the order of rejection should however be the basis for the conclusion that the applicant's representation is not acceptable. In G.O.Ms.No.352, Revenue Department dated 27.8.1992, her representation for correction of date of birth was rejected, on the ground that with reference to the date received, 7.8.1984, she had appeared for S.S.L.C. examination in March, 1952 and derived the benefits of doing so, at an early date and therefore, she cannot be allowed to get the benefit for longer period of service. The above objection was raised by the authorities before the Tribunal. However, the reason for rejecting the relief stated by the authorities was not accepted by the Tribunal and hence the Tribunal has stated as "such reason is primafacie not acceptable". With regard to the alteration of Gnanam's date of birth, the Tribunal has observed that the alteration of date of birth has to be examined with reference to the evidence put forward. Further while deciding the case of the Government, the Tribunal appreciated the registration of birth as a reliable evidence. Unless and otherwise, there are reasons to hold that the registration cannot relate to the applicant, it would not be proper to reject such evidence. It is further observed by the Tribunal that so long as there is no evidence to the contrary, the registration should be taken as an acceptable evidence. Accordingly, the relief sought for by the petitioner Gnanam was granted. 10. So far as the case on hand is concerned, as already discussed above, the petitioner produced the marriage invitation card of the petitioner's parents. Birth extract of the petitioner issued by the Birth and Death Registrar's Office and the birth extract of his younger sister, by the petitioner for altering date of birth of the petitioner. The Tribunal ought to have appreciated the materials produced by the petitioner and could have arrived at a right conclusion by allowing the petition. However, the Tribunal without proper appreciation of relevant facts and materials available, simply rejected the claim of the petitioner, by stating that if really the petitioner was born in 1951, he could not have passed S.S.L.C. examination in 1965. Such reason stated by the Tribunal for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is not at all sustainable in law. 11. However, the Tribunal without proper appreciation of relevant facts and materials available, simply rejected the claim of the petitioner, by stating that if really the petitioner was born in 1951, he could not have passed S.S.L.C. examination in 1965. Such reason stated by the Tribunal for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is not at all sustainable in law. 11. In the light of the discussions referred to above, we are of the view that the reason stated by the Tribunal for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is not a valid one. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal to set aside the same. Hence the order of the Tribunal passed in O.A.No.2969 of 2003 is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. We direct the concerned authorities to pass necessary orders to alter the date of birth of the petitioner as 26.6.1951 within a period, months from the date of receipt of a this order.