Judgment :- (This Writ petition came to be numbered by way of transfer of O.A.No.456 of 1998 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to call for the records of the 3rd respondent in Kho.152/96 dated 17.12.96 and quash the same and direct the respondents to accept 1.7.1945 as the correct date of birth of the petitioner.) The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the third respondent dated 17.12.1996 and direct the respondents to accept the date 1.7.1945 as correct date of birth of the petitioner. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Head Mazdoor in the Public Works Department on 1.1.1965 and was holding the post of Works Inspector Grade-II and working in the Lower Bhavani Basin Sub-division, Kangayam, Erode District at the time of filing the original application. According to the petitioner at the time of joining into the service petitioner had produced the Transfer Certificate issued by the Government High School, Perundurai, Erode District, and the ESLC certificate, which was equivalent to Class VIII, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 10.9.1940. 3. The case of the petitioner is that at the time when he left the school after completing Class VIII, his age was 20, which cannot be true as there occurred a mistake in entering his date of birth. Petitioner further states that he had examined himself at the Government Hospital, Modakurichi on 24.11.1969 for determination of his age and according to the certificate issued by the Hospital, his date of birth is mentioned as 1.7.1945. Based on the said certificate, petitioner submitted his application before the third respondent to correct the date of birth entered in the service register as 1.7.1945 instead of 10.9.1940. As the said application was rejected by the third respondent, petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. In the counter affidavit the second respondent has stated that the certificate issued by the Medical Officer cannot be relied upon when the school records are available. As the said application was rejected by the third respondent, petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. In the counter affidavit the second respondent has stated that the certificate issued by the Medical Officer cannot be relied upon when the school records are available. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the entry in the Transfer Certificate was verified by the Head Master, Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Perundurai, and he again reiterated by his letter dated 29.8.1996 that the petitioner's correct date of birth as per the school records is 10.9.1940. It is further stated that as the school records are available, the same will prevail over the certificate issued by the Medical Officer. 5. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate. 6. At the time of joining in the school, petitioner's date of birth was given as 10.9.1940. The school records, particularly the Government School records is the official documentary evidence, presumed to be correct, unless the contrary is proved. In this case, nothing is shown to prove that the entry made in the school register is wrong or erroneous. The certificate issued by the Medical Officer has no value when the school records are available and the date of birth found in the school records is found to be correct even in the year 1996 by the Headmaster of the School. 7. The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2005 (5) Supreme 585 (State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh) considered a similar issue as to the validity of the school certificate and the horoscope and held that the school record will have more probative value than a horoscope as regards age of a person recorded in school certificate. I feel it relevant to extract paragraph 10 of the said judgment, which reads as under, "In terms of Section 32, clause 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act'), the evidentiary value of a horoscope has to be considered. No evidence was led by the respondent to prove authenticity of the same. In any event the same was not to be given primacy over the school leaving certificate. It was not shown as to how the entry therein was wrong. No evidence was led by the respondent to prove authenticity of the same. In any event the same was not to be given primacy over the school leaving certificate. It was not shown as to how the entry therein was wrong. The onus was on the respondent to prove that the same was not correct, which was not discharged. Two photostat copies of the school leaving certificate were produced before the enquiry officer. He compared them and found that even to naked eye change of figure "31" to "34" was visible. Interestingly in the said copies the date of birth was indicated even after the change to be 25.11.1934 and not 1.10.1934 as claimed." 8. At this juncture it is also relevant to point out that the request for correction of date of birth of a Government servant shall be strictly viewed as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decisions reported in (1993) 2 SCC 162 (Union of India v. Harnam Singh); (1994) 6 SCC 302 (State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V.Venugopalan); (1997) 5 SCC 181 (State of Orissa and Others v. Ramanath Patnaik); (2003) 6 SCC 483 (State of U.P. and others v. Gulaichi (Smt.)); (2004) 3 SCC 394 (State of Punjab and Others v. S.C.Chadha); and 2006-1 LW 568 (State of U.P. and another v. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya). 9. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the date of birth in the service register has already been corrected without any counter signature. In the counter affidavit it is clearly stated that there is no authenticity for the claim of correction and it is the mischief done by the petitioner, for which a disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner by the Executive Engineer and the said action was dropped since the petitioner had pleaded for excuse and pardon before the then Assistant Executive Engineer, Kangeyam. 10. The third respondent, who is the competent authority had gone into the matter and found that the date of birth entered in the service register as 10.9.1940 is correct. Moreover, the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation and is receiving pension now. 11. There is no merit in the writ petition and consequently the same is dismissed. No costs.