Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. The petitioner was selected and appointed in the Indian Administrative Service on 17. 1975. According to the petitioner, his correct date of birth is 10. 1951, but due to clerical error committed at the time of his entry in the school, his date of birth was wrongly entered as 24. 1950 and the same was carried in his service book also. It is submitted by the petitioner that in the year 1979, when marriage proposals were initiated for him, it was found that his correct date of birth was 10. 1951 as per the horoscope/jathakam, which was confirmed by the Sub Registrar, Bhavani, issuing a Birth Certificate, declaring the petitioners date of birth as 10. 1951. Thereupon, the petitioner, by his application dated 21. 1980, i.e. within five years of his entry into the service, has approached the respondents 2 and 3 for alteration of his date of birth. Based on the said application, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobichettipalayam, after making local enquiry, as directed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, has submitted his report dated 23. 1980, stating that the petitioners date of birth was 10. 1951 and the Board of Revenue, by its proceedings dated 14. 1980 has accepted the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer and recommended that the petitioners date of birth be altered accordingly. But, the 2nd respondent, by his letter dated 17. 1980, has informed him that it was not possible to accede to his request for alteration of his date of birth, to which, the petitioner sent a detailed representation on 21. 1981, which was also rejected on 9. 1985. 2. Thereupon, the petitioner filed O.S.No.3084 of 1986 before the VII City Civil Court, Chennai, after issuing a legal notice, for declaration of his date of birth as 10. 1951 and by the judgment dated 210. 1996, the said suit was decreed, declaring the petitioners correct date of birth as 10. 1951 and directed that consequential change must be effected in the SSLC book, Service Book etc. The petitioner filed E.P.No.2262 of 2000 and thereafter, based on the said judgment, the Director of School Education has altered the petitioners date of birth in the SSLC Book. 1996, the said suit was decreed, declaring the petitioners correct date of birth as 10. 1951 and directed that consequential change must be effected in the SSLC book, Service Book etc. The petitioner filed E.P.No.2262 of 2000 and thereafter, based on the said judgment, the Director of School Education has altered the petitioners date of birth in the SSLC Book. But, after more than six years, the 2nd respondent challenged the said judgment and decree before the High Court, by filing Civil Revision Petition No.298 of 2002 under Article 227 of the Constitution, which was disposed of by the High Court on 28. 2003, holding that the judgment and decree of the City Civil Court was without jurisdiction as no declaration for alteration of date of birth in the service book could be granted by the civil court, pursuant to the constitution of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act. As a result, the petitioner filed O.A.No.347 of 2004 before the 1st respondent Tribunal to direct the respondents 2 and 3 herein to alter his date of birth from 24. 1950 to 10. 1951 in his service records for all purposes. Since the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application filed by him, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Heard Mr.R.Krishnamurthy, senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Wilson, Assistant Solicitor General for the second respondent/Government of India and Mrs.Geetha Thamarai Selvan, Government Advocate for the third respondent/Government of Tamil Nadu. 4. The petitioner being an Officer of the Indian Administrative Service, the application submitted by him for alteration of Date of Birth is governed by the provisions of All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, as amended in the year 1978. Rule 16-A of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1978 is a composite rule, which was intended to and does apply to all persons of the All India Service to whom the principle Rules of 1958 are applicable. Rule 16-A of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1978 is a composite rule, which was intended to and does apply to all persons of the All India Service to whom the principle Rules of 1958 are applicable. Rule 16-A of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1978, deals with acceptance of date of birth and in order to examine the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to the same and the same is extracted hereunder: "16-A: Acceptance of date of birth - (1)For the purpose of determination of the date of superannuation of a member of the service, such date shall be calculated with reference to the date of his birth as accepted by the Central Government under this rule. (2)In relation to a person appointed, after the commencement of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Amendment Rules, 1971 .(a) The Indian Administrative Service under Clause (a) or Clause (aa) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954; or .(b) The Indian Police Service under Clause (a) or clause (aa) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the India Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954; or .(c) The Indian Forest Services under Clause (a) or Clause (aa) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966; the date of birth as declared by such person in the application for recruitment to the service shall be accepted by the Central Government as the date of birth of such person. (3)In relation to a person to whom sub-rule (2) does not apply, the date of birth as recorded in the service book or other similar official document maintained by the concerned Government shall be accepted by the Central Government, as the date of birth of such person. (4)The date of birth as accepted by the Central Government shall not be subject to any alteration except where it is established that a bona fide clerical mistake has been committed in accepting the date of birth under sub-rule (2) or (3)." 5. (4)The date of birth as accepted by the Central Government shall not be subject to any alteration except where it is established that a bona fide clerical mistake has been committed in accepting the date of birth under sub-rule (2) or (3)." 5. As seen from the above Rule 16-A(2), the date of birth as declared by such person in the application for recruitment to the service shall be accepted by the Central Government as the date of birth of such person and as per Rule 16-A(4), the date of birth as accepted by the Central Government shall not be subject to any alteration except where it is established that a bona fide clerical mistake has been committed in accepting the date of birth under Sub-Rule (2) or (3). Thus, there are two contingencies as per this Rule, the first one is declaration of date of birth as per Rule 16-A(2) or (3) by the applicant and acceptance of such declared date of birth by the Central Government. For any alteration to be effected regarding the date of birth, declared by the applicant in his application for recruitment to the service and accepted by the Central Government, it must be proved by the applicant that a bona fide clerical mistake has been committed in accepting his date of birth by the Central Government. Until and unless it is proved by the applicant, the question of alteration of date of birth of the applicant does not at all arise. In this back drop, now we shall proceed to discuss the case on hand. 6. On the part of the petitioner, it has been vehemently argued that since the petitioner was appointed in the year 1975 i.e. prior to the coming into being of the Amended Rules of the year 1978, it cannot be given retrospective effect so as to apply to his case. But, it is to be pointed out that though the petitioner joined the services in the year 1975, he submitted his application for alteration of date of birth on 21. 1980, by which time, only the Amended Rules of the year 1978 are in vogue. Further more, the Amended Rule 16A of the year 1978 replaced the earlier Rule 16-A, which had been incorporated by the notification dated 12. 1971. 1980, by which time, only the Amended Rules of the year 1978 are in vogue. Further more, the Amended Rule 16A of the year 1978 replaced the earlier Rule 16-A, which had been incorporated by the notification dated 12. 1971. Therefore, Rule 16-A, as incorporated in 1978 is applicable as on the date of the application of the petitioner and the question of applicability of the repeated Rule 16-A, which had been incorporated in 1971, does not arise. A similar argument advanced before the Honourable Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA vs. C.RAMASWAMY AND OTHERS [ AIR 1997 SC 2055 ] was rejected by the Honourable Apex Court in the following terms: "The effect of a rule being substituted by a new rule clearly is that the old rule, which stands substituted, can under no circumstances have any application, at least from the date when it ceased to exist. With effect from 7th July, 1978, a new Rule 16-A having been incorporated in the Rules, it was this rule alone which was applicable when the respondent represented for alteration in the date of birth by his first representation of 4th September, 1982. Reading Rule 16-A as a whole it is clear to us that it applies to all persons belonging to the All India Services who were in service and the said rule does not exclude pre-4th December, 1971 direct recruits from its application, as has been held by the Tribunal. We have nothing to add to this categorical ruling of the Honourable Apex Court and we draw source from the said ruling of the Honourable Apex Court to reject this argument advanced on the part of the petitioner and thus, we hold that since the petitioner has submitted his application on 21. 1980, i.e. well after the coming into being of Rule 16A, as amended in the year 1978, the same alone is applicable as on the date of the application of the petitioner and the question of applicability of the repeated Rule 16-A, which had been incorporated in 1971, does not arise. 7. 1980, i.e. well after the coming into being of Rule 16A, as amended in the year 1978, the same alone is applicable as on the date of the application of the petitioner and the question of applicability of the repeated Rule 16-A, which had been incorporated in 1971, does not arise. 7. Since the petitioner has joined the service after the coming into being of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Amendment Rules, 1971, his case falls within sub-rule (2) of Rule 16-A of the as could be seen from Rule 16-A(2) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Amendment Rules, 1978 and therefore, the date of birth of such persons, who joined the service after the Amendment Rules of the year 1971, but before the Amendment Rules of the year 1978, as declared in their applications for recruitment to the service shall be accepted by the Central Government as the date of birth of such person. As per sub Rule (4) of Rule 16-A, the date of birth as accepted by the Central Government shall not be subject to any alteration, except where it is established that a bona fide clerical mistake has been committed in accepting the date of birth under sub-rule (2) or (3). 8. Therefore, as has already been discussed supra, as per this Rule, there are two stages, one is declaration of date of birth by the applicant and the second is acceptance of the date of birth of the applicant by the Central Government. In the case on hand, admittedly, the date of birth mentioned by the petitioner in his application for recruitment to the service i.e. 24. 1950 was accepted by the Central Government and the same was also effected/carried out in his Service Book. At this juncture, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that though his original date of birth is 10. 1951, due to a bona fide clerical mistake occurred at the time of his entry in the school, the same was shown as 24. 1950, which was carried out to his service book. It has been further explained by the petitioner that since his father being a Central Government employee was in a touring job at that time, his maternal grand-father admitted him in the school and due to inadvertence, he had given a wrong date of birth. 9. 1950, which was carried out to his service book. It has been further explained by the petitioner that since his father being a Central Government employee was in a touring job at that time, his maternal grand-father admitted him in the school and due to inadvertence, he had given a wrong date of birth. 9. Now, we have to see, whether this inadvertence pleaded on the part of the petitioner, could be considered as a bona fide clerical mistake, so as to heed to the request made on the part of the petitioner. .10. The entire case on hand, squarely falls within the ambit of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA vs. C.RAMASWAMY AND OTHERS [ AIR 1997 SC 2055 ], wherein also a similar situation was dealt with by the Honourable Apex Court. In that case before the Honourable Apex Court, the applicant therein was selected as a direct recruit to the Indian Police Service (IPS) in the year 1968 and in his service book, the date of birth entered was 16. 1939, which was made on the basis of his date of birth as recorded in the Senior School Leaving Certificate and also in his application for appearing for Civil Services Examination of the year 1967 and nearly fourteen years after he joined the service, he submitted a representation to the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, to which he was allotted, for changing his date of birth to 16. 1941. In his application, inter alia, he stated that after the demise of his mother, while going through various papers in his house, he found from his horoscope that his date of birth which was written in Tamil corresponded to 16. 1941 and since his representation was rejected by the State Government and also the Central Government, he filed a civil suit before the Court of the District Munsif, Sholinghur, impleading the Director of School Education, Madras, District Educational Officer, Vellore and his eldest sister as the defendants, claiming a decree for mandatory injunction for directing defendants 1 and 2 to alter his date of birth and in the said suit, neither the State Government of Andhra Pradesh nor the Union of India were impleaded and the said suit was decreed. Thereupon, he made a representation to the Union of India, by by applying Rule 16-A of the All India Services (DCRB) Rules, 1958, his representation was rejected by the Government of India. Thereafter, he filed O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, which was allowed by the Tribunal and aggrieved by the same, the appeal was filed before the Supreme Court by the Department. 11. Thus, the facts in the case before the Honourable Supreme Court are similar to the facts of the case on hand, the only difference being that in the case on hand, in the civil suit filed by the petitioner herein, the respondents 2 and 3 herein are impleaded as parties and on contest, the same was decreed, but, subsequently, by virtue of a Civil Revision Petition filed by the Department, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the said decree passed by the civil Court, was held to be without jurisdiction, after the coming into being of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The other difference is that in the case on hand, the application for alteration of date of birth was filed within the prescribed period of five years. .12. In the said judgment, the Honourable Apex Court has defined the term bona fide clerical error found in Rule 16-A as follows: ."Bona fide clerical error would normally be one where an officer had 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 date has been recorded. In such a case, even in the absence of a statutory rule like Rule 16-A, the principle of estoppel would apply and the authorities concerned would be justified in declining to alter the date of birth. If such a decision is challenged the Court also ought not to grant any relief even if it is shown that the date of birth, as originally recorded, was incorrect because the candidate concerned had represented a different date of birth to be taken into consideration obviously with a view that would be to his advantage." 13. Since, as has already been adverted to supra, the date of birth mentioned by the petitioner in his application for recruitment to the service, i.e. 24. Since, as has already been adverted to supra, the date of birth mentioned by the petitioner in his application for recruitment to the service, i.e. 24. 1950, was accepted by the Central Government and the same was also effected in his Service Book, there is no bona fide clerical error, as has been defined by the Honourable Apex Court in the above cited judgment. It is not that the petitioner had indicated 10. 1951 as his date of birth in his application form or any other document at the time of his employment, but, by mistake or oversight a different date viz. 24. 1950 has been recorded. Therefore, in strict application of Rule 16-A(2) and (4) and in the light of the above judgment of the Honourable Apex Court, it has to be held that there is no clerical error, much less a bona fide clerical error in entering the date of birth of the petitioner in his service records, which would only permit the authorities to correct his date of birth, in view of Rule 16-A of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1978. .14. On behalf of the petitioner, a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in S.SATHYANATHAN vs. DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI AND OTHERS [ (2006) 1 M.L.J. 189 ] has been relied on. In that case, when an Under Secretary to the Government sought alteration of date of birth and the Sub-Collector recommended Commissioner of Revenue Administration to make necessary corrections and no action was taken, whereupon the matter came to this Court, since the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the applicant and considering the facts and circumstances of that case, the Division Bench of this Court has held: ."In spite of the production of sufficient documents furnished by the petitioner for altering the date of birth, the Tribunal had not appreciated those relevant materials. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable." 15. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable." 15. This decision of the Division Bench of this Court had no application to the facts and circumstances of the case since it did not relate to Rule 16-A of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1978, which governs the entire subject on hand and further, as has already been held supra, the entire case squarely falls within the ambit of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in C.Ramaswamys case (supra). .16. At this stage, we feel it apt to quote Para No.25 of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court C.Ramaswamys case (supra), wherein it has been held as follows: ."In matters relating to appointment to service, various factors are taken into consideration before making a selection or an appointment. One of the relevant circumstances is the age of the person who is sought to be appointed. It may not be possible to conclusively prove that an advantage had been gained by representing a date of birth which is different than that which is later sought to be incorporated. But it will not be unreasonable to presume that when a candidate, at the first instance, communicates a particular date of birth there is obviously his intention that his age calculated on the basis of that date of birth should be taken into consideration by the appointing authority for adjudging his suitability for a responsible office. In fact, where maturity is a relevant factor to assess suitability, an older person is ordinarily considered to be more mature and, therefore, more suitable. In such a case, it cannot be said that advantage is not obtained by a person because of an earlier date of birth, if he subsequently claims to be younger in age, after taking that advantage. In such a situation, it would be against public policy to permit such a change to enable longer benefit to the person concerned. This being so, we find it difficult to accept the broad proposition that the principle of estoppel would not apply in such a case where the age of a person who is sought to be appointed may be a relevant consideration to assess his suitability." 17. It is to be pointed out that even as per the affidavit of the petitioner, his father was a Central Government employee and not a layman. It is to be pointed out that even as per the affidavit of the petitioner, his father was a Central Government employee and not a layman. Such being the case, his father is well aware of the importance attached to the entry of date of birth in the school records. Even if it is believed that by inadvertence, the maternal grand-father of the petitioner has furnished the wrong date of birth of the petitioner and the same has been carried out in his school records, subsequently, at different stages of education and pursuing the employment, the father of the petitioner might have noticed the same. But, till the petitioner joined the IAS, there was no attempt made on the part of the petitioner or his father to get the date of birth corrected. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that he came to know of his actual date of birth, only when there was marriage proposal for him, does not seem to be a convincing one. Thus, viewing from any angle, we are unable to find fault with the well considered and merited order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, we see no reason to cause out interference into the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.