Judgment :- This writ petition is filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in its proceedings R.C.No.7763/A-1/2001, dated 4.9.2001 and quash the same as arbitrary, invalid and illegal and direct the respondent to consider representation of the petitioner for change of date of birth on merits and on the basis records furnished by him. 2. The petitioner states that he was an employee of the respondent-corporation. He joined the services of the respondent in 1971 as a Junior Assistant. He was a graduate at that time. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 10.5.1947 as he was born on that day at No. 11, Yakoob Sait Street, Chennai and the same was duly registered in the birth register of Corporation of Madras, Health Department on 14.5.1947 itself, i.e., within a week after the date of his birth. It is stated by, the petitioner that his parents in order to join him in school, advanced his age and declared his date of birth as 10.5.1946 instead of 10.5.1947 at the time of admitting him in school. Accordingly, his Secondary School Leaving Certificate also reflects his date of birth as 10.5.1946 following that, the date of birth of the petitioner was declared as 10.5.1946 while joining the services of the respondent-corporation the petitioner was promoted as Assistant and then as Superintendent and he retired (during the pendency of the writ petition) on 31.5.2004 on superannuation. On coming to know of his actual date of birth, he made representation on 27.6.1995 along with the extract from the birth register for change in his date of birth from 10.5.1946 to 10.5.1947. The said representation was forwarded by the respondent to the Collector for verifying the genuineness of the same. The Collector, in turn, by correspondence dated 8.10.1995 intimated the respondent that the representation had to be made to the appointing authority and Revenue Divisional Officer and an enquiry by an official of the rank not less than Deputy Collector has to be conducted and forward the report to the appoint­ing authority. It is also stated by the petitioner that he had asked for the particulars regarding the procedure to be adopted for changing his date of birth. It is also stated by the petitioner that he had asked for the particulars regarding the procedure to be adopted for changing his date of birth. Since nothing was happening, he filed writ petition in W.P.No.12087 of 2001 for a direction to the respondent to change his date of birth to 10.5.1947 as per the birth register of the corporation instead of 10.5.1946 as entered in the service book. The said writ petition was disposed of on 16.7.2001 by an order, directing the petitioner to move the respondent with a representation which would be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law. Subse­quently, the petitioner made a representation on 2.8.2001 to the respondent. In reply to that, the respondent vide letter dated 4.9.2001 re­ferred to the latest G.O. dated 8.8.1995 issued by the Secretary to the Government. P & A.R. (S) Department addressed to Special Commissioner for Revenue Administration stated that request for alteration of date of birth re­ceived after 5 years after entry into service would have to be summarily rejected. Chal­lenging that order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit­ted that the representation of the petitioner was not disposed of on merits as directed by this Court in the earlier writ petition. He also re­ferred to the various representations made by the petitioner to the authorities concerned. It is his case that no action has been taken and it has been rejected referring to some proceedings or other of the department. Learned coun­sel added that when the petitioner asked for the G.O., the same was not given to him on the due date and consequently, he could not chal­lenge the same. According to the learned coun­sel for the petitioner, the petitioner joined the services of the respondent in 1971 at the aged 25, and if the date of birth is taken accord­ing to the school leaving certificate and at the age of 24 years, if the date of birth is taken as per the birth extract issued by the Corporation of Madras, and according to the petitioner, he had not gained anything at the time of his appointment because of his date of birth declared by him as per the school leaving certificate. It is also stated by him that by correcting the date of birth of the petitioner, none would be prejudiced. It is also stated by him that by correcting the date of birth of the petitioner, none would be prejudiced. It is also his case that the petitioner has not approached this Court at the fag end of his service career. He has also referred to the decision reported in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya, (2005) 6 S.C.C.49. He has drawn my attention to para.9 of the said decision. Learned counsel has also referred to the decision reported in (1993) 2 S.C.C 162 , and reiterated that the date of birth of the petitioner should have been corrected by the respondent-corporation. 4. In reply to the same, learned counsel for the respondent while reiterating what has been stated in the counter, has submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner in the service register was entered into as 10.5.1946 on the basis of the S.S.L.C. certificate submitted by him. He also submitted that according to Rule 49 of the General Rules of Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Services, if any person wants to alter the date of birth, he shall do so within 5 years from the date of joining the service. As per G.O.Ms.No.2125, education, dated 25.9.1975, all the Government rules were made applicable to the employees of this corporation also. It is his case that the petitioner in order to set extension of service in the respondent-corporation has come up with this writ petition to alter the age after serving in the corporation for 23 years. It is his further case that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner attained superannuation and retired on 31.5.2004. He reiterated that according to Rule 49(c) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services introduced with effect from 24.1.1961, any application for alteration of date of birth received after five years after entry into service shall be summarily rejected unless the application gives adequate explanation for making such belated application to the authority competent to deal with it. Subsequently, amendments were issued to this Sub rule that any application received after 5 years after entry into service shall be summarily rejected. This amendment, according to the learned counsel, came into retrospective effect from 24.1.1961. He has also submitted that the above provision has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Subsequently, amendments were issued to this Sub rule that any application received after 5 years after entry into service shall be summarily rejected. This amendment, according to the learned counsel, came into retrospective effect from 24.1.1961. He has also submitted that the above provision has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further added by the learned, counsel, pursuant to the directions given by this Court in the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.12087 of 2001, a copy of he letter 12717/95-9, dated 8.8.1995 was also given to the petitioner vide the respondent's letter dated 28.12.2001 and the petitioner has also received the copy of the same on 2.1.2002. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of the petitioner to state that he did not receive the, circular copy. Therefore the petitioner was well aware of the Rules and Regulations that are prevailing in the corporation insofar as the alteration of date of birth is concerned. Therefore, according to him, the date of birth of the petitioner cannot be altered and the same has been rejected in accordance with the statutory rules. The learned counsel relied upon the ratio laid down in State of Uttar Pradesh Y. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya, (2005) 5 S.C.C.49, to substantiate his argument that belated application cannot be entertained. Therefore, this writ petition does not deserve any consideration by this Court. 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made both by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that he made representation to the department only 27.6.1995. Whereas he joined the services the respondent in 1971. His service in the respondent-corporation was entered into on basis of his S.S.L.C. certificate, as submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be that the department has made any error in entering the date, of birth of the petitioner in service book. Moreover, the decision referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not apply to the facts of this case. In the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh Shiv Narain Upadhyaya, (2005) 5 S.C.C.49, in para.9, it has been stated categorically that the request for correction of date of birth should be made on the basis of clinching materials that too within the reasonable time as per the rules governing the service. In the decision. In the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh Shiv Narain Upadhyaya, (2005) 5 S.C.C.49, in para.9, it has been stated categorically that the request for correction of date of birth should be made on the basis of clinching materials that too within the reasonable time as per the rules governing the service. In the decision. (1993) 2 S.C.C.162, it, is clearly stated para. 15 that the request for alteration of date of birth should be done within a reasonable time and it cannot be allowed on an unexplained and inordinate delay. The said decision also referred to the fundamental rules and stated that one should make necessary application for correcting the date of birth within a period of five years after entering into service and it should not be made after the period specified. Therefore, both the above said decisions submitted by the petitioner cannot be taken to support the case of the petitioner. Whereas the above said decisions support the case of the learned counsel for the respondent. Besides this, the amended Rule 49(c) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services introduced with effect from 24.1.1961 is also very clear that application for alteration of date of birth should be made within five years after entry into service. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in this writ petition and the same will have to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.