ORDER (Per Bilal Nazki, J.) In this Writ Petition, proceedings, dated 15-5-2006, are sought to be quashed, by which, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has rejected the request of the petitioner for alteration of his date of birth from 12-10-1963 to 12-9-1964. It appears that the petitioner made a representation, which was rejected by the High Court in following terms: "Considered the applications together with the enclosures of Sri N. Nagaraju and resolved to reject the request of the officer for alteration of his date of birth." 2. Petitioner claims that he was born on 12-9-1964 in Government Hospital, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, to Sri N. Nageswara Rao, and Smt. Veera Raghavamma. He was 7th issue to his parents. The first issue to his parents was a male child, by name, Ravindranath, who was born on 31-7-1952; then, three daughters were born to his parents on 4-11-1953, 1-2-1956 and 25-11-1957, respectively, and another male child, who was born on 20-11-1959. Thereafter, another female child was born on 18-5-1962. The petitioner, being the 7th issue, was born on 12-9-1964 in Government Hospital, Machilipatnam. The dates of all his brothers and sisters including him were duly entered in the records of the Machilipatnam Municipality and certificates of birth, in respect of all seven, were issued by the municipality, which have been annexed to the petition, as Exs.P-1 to P-7. 3. The petitioner further submitted that at the time of admission into school, his parents out of ignorance have mentioned his date of birth as 12-10-1963, and the same was recorded in the school register. He obtained his law degree in 1988 and got enrolled as an advocate in June, 1988 and started practising at Machilipatnam. In 1996, he applied for the post of Junior Civil Judge, got selected and at the time of joining as Junior Civil Judge, some discussion in the family arose regarding his date of birth and then, "my horoscope came to light. The petitioner contends that he came to know that his correct date of birth was 12-9-1964 but not 12-10-1963, as mentioned in the school records. In fact, the horoscope was got prepared immediately after his birth by his parents. The petitioner contends that he came to know that his correct date of birth was 12-9-1964 but not 12-10-1963, as mentioned in the school records. In fact, the horoscope was got prepared immediately after his birth by his parents. After his selection, he was employed in the A.P. Judicial Academy and joined the service as trainee on 16-5-1998 and on 21-5-1998, the made a representation to 1he Director, A.P. Judicial Academy, bringing to his notice the foresaid facts and requested for mention of his date of birth as 12-9-1964 in the service register, instead of 12-10-1963, He also approached the municipality and the municipality informed him that in respect of any birth, there was no entry on 12-10-1963, as far as his parents were concerned. In the service register opened by the Director, Judicial Academy, the date of birth was recorded as 12-10-1963 and since he had already made an application for alteration of his date of birth, it was specifically mentioned in the service register "subject to alteration". His representation was forwarded to the High Court. It had dismissed the application. The impugned order has been challenged stating that it was not a speaking order and it does not disclose the reasons, which the administrative committee of the High Court had in mind, while rejecting his application. 4. The petitioner had made a representation within 5 days of his joining for change of date of birth and an enquiry was contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.165, dated 21-4-1984. The petitioner had placed ample evidence on record showing the extracts of date of birth of his elder brothers and sisters, which were duly recorded in the register of the municipality and which were credit worthy. All along, his date of birth has been mentioned as 12-10-1963 and when he filled his form for appointment, he must have given the same date at the time of seeking appointment in the Court. He did not dispute his date of birth, 12 but while filling up the service register, he recorded his date of birth as 12-10-1963, but mentioned himself that it is subject to alteration and now, in this petition he wants an enquiry to be held under Rule 2(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 (for short "the Rules"). There is no question of having an enquiry being conducted on mere saying of the petitioner that his date of birth was wrongly entered in his school record. For almost 30 years, the same record was maintained by him. When he approached this Court for a job, he mentioned the same date of birth, and in such circumstances, we do not think that any enquiry is contemplated under Rule 2(1) of the Rules. The certificate issued by the municipality has been issued in the year 1988. 5. The contention of the petitioner further is that since he had made a representation within five days of his joining in terms of Rule 2 of the Rules, the respondents should have conducted an enquiry. Under Rule 2(1) of the Rules, every Government employee is obliged to make a declaration as to his date of birth within one month of his joining duty and this even, according to the petitioner, has been made by him. He had declared his date of birth in the application seeking appointment, and also got his date of birth recorded as 12-10-1963, in the service register by stating that it was subject to alteration. In fact, the petitioner has made the declaration that was required to be made under the Rules, because while recording the date of birth in his service register, he recorded correctly, as reflected in the school records, but by merely saying that it was subject to alteration would not make the respondent to hold an enquiry. His school record discloses that his date of birth is 12-10-1963. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 2 of the Rules, lays down as under: The date of birth as determined on the basis of the school records or any proof produced at the time of entering into service and entered in the service record shall be final and no subsequent variation of date of birth in the school records for any reason, shall be relevant for the purpose of service and on that basis the date of birth entered in the service records shall not be altered except in the case of bona fide clerical error, under the orders of the Government. " 6. " 6. That once the date of birth is recorded on the basis of the school records or any proof produced at the time of entering into service, shall be final and no variation of date of birth in the school records for any reason shall be relevant for the purpose of service. Therefore, what sub-rule (5) of Rule 2 of the Rules contemplates is that variation of date of birth in the school records, for any reason, cannot be made except in case of bona fide clerical error under the orders of the Government. Therefore, if the date of birth of the petitioner is taken to be 12-9-1964 and not 12-10-1963, it will amount to changing the date of birth recorded in the school records, which cannot be permitted in view of sub-rule (5) of Rule 2 of the Rules. We find no merit in the writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.