Judgment :- (This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 6.2.2003 in W.P.No.4944 of 1999.) V. Ramasubramanian, J. The petitioner in the writ petition, who was unsuccessful in seeking the relief of correction of his date of birth from 5.5.1945 to 14.10.1946, is the appellant herein. 2. The appellant was appointed on 8.8.1969 as Junior Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. At the time of his entry into service, his date of birth was recorded in the Service Register as 5.5.1945 in tune with the date of birth reflected in the SSLC book. 3. Within five years of his entry into service, the appellant submitted a representation dated 3.12.1973 to the Chief Engineer seeking alteration of his date of birth from 5.5.1945 to 14.10.1946 on the basis of the Certificate of extract from the birth register. The said request was turned down by the Chief Engineer by an order dated 22.8.1977, on the ground that there was no conclusive evidence to establish his claim for alternation of date of birth. Unfortunately, the appellant did not choose to challenge the said order and hence it attained finality. 4. After about 15 years of allowing the issue to die down, the appellant again raked up the issue by making a representation on 4.3.1992, taking cue from an order passed in favour of an Assistant Executive Engineer by name Nandagopal allowing his claim for alteration of date of birth. This representation dated 4.3.1992 of the appellant was rejected by an order dated 29.7.1993, on the ground that the date of birth entered in the Service Register cannot be altered unless the date of birth entered in the SSLC book got corrected first. 5. Catching hold of the ground stated in the order of rejection, as a last straw on the Camel's back, the appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.135 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur, praying for a declaration that his date of birth is 14.10.1946 and for a consequential mandatory injunction directing the Director of School Education to correct his date of birth in the SSLC book. Curiously, the appellant impleaded only his father and the Director of School Education as the defendants in the suit and he did not implead the Electricity Board (his employer) as a party to the suit, in spite of the Director of School Education taking an exception to the same in his written statement. 6. The said suit was decreed as prayed for on 27.10.1994 and the appellant got the date of birth altered in his SSLC book. 7. With the amended SSLC book, the appellant sent a representation dated 19.6.1996 followed by a further representation dated 2.8.1996, but they were rejected by the Board, by a detailed order dated 23.9.1997. Thereafter, the appellant gave another representation on 23.6.1998, got it rejected once again by the Board on 21.7.1998 and filed W.P.No.4944 of 1999, challenging the orders of the Board dated 23.9.1997 and 21.7.1998. 8. On a consideration of the entire facts as well as the law on the issue, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition and aggrieved by the dismissal, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 9. We have heard Mr.R.Muthukannu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.M.Vaithianathan, learned counsel for the respondents. 10. Mr.R.Muthukannu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended in an ingenious manner that the request of the appellant was not one for alteration of date of birth but is actually one for correction of date of birth. According to the learned counsel, the date of birth as entered in the SSLC book as on date, is 14.10.1946 and that therefore a request for changing the entry relating to date of birth in his Service Register to be in tune with what is reflected in the SSLC book, is virtually for "Correction" and not for "Alteration". Obviously, the learned counsel for the appellant sought to project this fine distinction only with a view to get over the obstacle of limitation of five years prescribed under Regulation 110-A of TNEB Employees' Service Regulations, for seeking alteration of date of birth. 11. But we are unable to countenance the said argument for the following reasons:- a) The attempt of the appellant, to get his date of birth changed from 5.5.1945 to 14.10.1946, started of, only as a request for "Alteration", way back on 3.12.1973 when he made a representation to the Chief Engineer. 11. But we are unable to countenance the said argument for the following reasons:- a) The attempt of the appellant, to get his date of birth changed from 5.5.1945 to 14.10.1946, started of, only as a request for "Alteration", way back on 3.12.1973 when he made a representation to the Chief Engineer. The said representation was rejected on 22.8.1977 itself and the appellant did not choose to challenge the said order of rejection. b) After allowing the said rejection order dated 22.8.1977 to go unchallenged, the appellant again made a feeble attempt on 4.3.1992, after a lapse of 15 years. This attempt was also only to have "Alteration" of date of birth and not for "Correction" of date of birth. c) It is only after taking cue from a second rejection order dated 29.7.1993 that the appellant went before the Civil Court seeking a decree. Even in the Civil Court, the relief prayed for by the appellant was only for "Alternation" of date of birth and not "Correction" of date of birth. d) Despite the Director of School Education taking exception to the failure of the appellant to implead the Electricity Board, the appellant did not implead his employer, but proceeded to obtain a decree behind the back of his employer. Therefore, in essence, what the appellant has sought for, is only "Alteration" of date of birth and not "Correction" of date of birth. 12. The word "Alteration" connotes a substantial change of a conscious decision taken earlier, while the word "Correction" connotes the rectification of a bona fide clerical error. What is a "bona fide clerical error" was considered by the Apex Court in the decision in Union of India vs. C.Rama Swamy and Others ( AIR 1997 SC 2055 ). In para-22 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court held as follows:- "Bona fide clerical error would normally be one where an officer has indicated a particular date of birth in his application form or any other document at the time of his employment but, by mistake or oversight a different dates has been recorded." 13. In para-22 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court held as follows:- "Bona fide clerical error would normally be one where an officer has indicated a particular date of birth in his application form or any other document at the time of his employment but, by mistake or oversight a different dates has been recorded." 13. As rightly observed by the learned Judge, the request of the appellant for "Alteration" of date of birth was rejected way back on 3.12.1973 and the appellant is not entitled to reopen the issue after a lapse of 15 years on the ground that a similar request was considered favourably in the case of another person. The circumstances under which a similar application of another person was entertained are not known and the appellant cannot claim equality of treatment in such matters. The second attempt made by the appellant through his representation dated 4.3.1992 is clearly barred by limitation as prescribed under Regulation 110-A of the TNEB Employees' Service Regulations and hence, there are no merits in the above appeal. Accordingly, the above appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.