Judgment :- Petitioner seeks writ of certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in Na.Ka.No.20058/C6/C22/1996 dated 16.03.2005 and to direct the 2nd Respondent to alter Petitioners Date of Birth from 18.08.1948 to 12.09.1951. 2. The Petitioner joined duty in Government service as Physical Education Teacher on 210. 1982, in Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Attur. Then she was promoted as Tamil Pandit to Government Higher Secondary School, Bellakurichi. By her application 21.02.1992, the Petitioner applied for change in Date of Birth from 18.08.1948 to 12.09.1951. The Directorate of School Education by the impugned proceedings rejected the request on the ground that the Petitioner had not applied for alteration of Date of Birth within five years from the date of joining in service. 3. On behalf of Petitioner, it was contended that the 2nd Respondent has not considered the crucial days which are necessary for the disposal of the application for the alteration of Date of Birth. It is stated that Petitioner has sent all the representations till 21.02.1992, and the 1st representation was given as early as on 010. 1985, which is well within the period of five years and not on 21.02.1992, as alleged by the 2nd Respondent. According to the Petitioner since the 1st representation was given even on 010. 1985, which is well within the period of five years the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. S. Thirumavalavan, had contended that the Petitioner had given representations on 312. 1985, 20.10.1986 and 011. 1987 and the same were forwarded to the CEO by the Head Master and there was no response for these earlier representation. Learned counsel further submitted that when the Petitioner has filed the representations for alteration of Date of Birth well within a period of five years the Respondents ought to have consider the same and without doing so, belatedly passed the order stating that the application was not received within five years from the date of joining service. 5. The Learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. N. Senthilkumar, has submitted that rule 49 (b) of the T.N. State and Subordinate Service Rules is very specific that any application for alteration of Date of Birth has to be filed within five years of entry into service. 5. The Learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. N. Senthilkumar, has submitted that rule 49 (b) of the T.N. State and Subordinate Service Rules is very specific that any application for alteration of Date of Birth has to be filed within five years of entry into service. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that the application of the Petitioner for alteration of Date of Birth was received only on 21.02.1992, which was beyond the period of five years and therefore the 3rd Respondent has rightly rejected the same. 6. As per Rule 49 of T.N State & Subordinate Service Rules deals with alteration of Date of Birth. As per Rule 49 (b) any application for alteration of Date of Birth has to be filed within five years of such entry into service. Rule 49(b) reads as under:- " ........ .(b) After a person has entered service, an application to alter the date of his birth as entered in the official records shall be entertained only if such an application is made within five years of such entry into service. Such an application shall be made to the authority competent to make an appointment to the post held by the applicant at the time of his application and shall be disposed of in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-rule(a). .(C) Any Application received after five years after entry into service or any application, which is not supported by entries in Secondary School Leaving Certificate, School, College or University records, birth extract from records, birth extract from records of local bodies or military discharge certificates, shall be summarily rejected." 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd Respondent it is clearly averred that the application dated 21.02.1992, filed by the Petitioner to the 3rd Respondent was received on 12.03.1992. In the counter affidavit the 3rd Respondent has clearly averred that the Petitioner has not applied for alteration of Date of Birth prior to 12.03.1992. When the Petitioner has not made any representation within the stipulated period of five years the Petitioner cannot seek for alteration of Date of Birth in violation of Rule 49 (b). Observing that alteration / correction of Date of Birth entered in service records must be made within a reasonable period and not at the verge of retirement, in (2006) 6 SCC 537 , State of Gujarat and Others vs. Vali Mohd. Observing that alteration / correction of Date of Birth entered in service records must be made within a reasonable period and not at the verge of retirement, in (2006) 6 SCC 537 , State of Gujarat and Others vs. Vali Mohd. Dosabhai Sindhi, the Honble Supreme Court has held as under:- "....... 12 ...Before any direction is issued or declaration made, the court of the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be within at least a reasonable time......... 8. Observing that the correction of Date of Birth should not be dealt with by the courts, Tribunal or the High court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. In (2004) 2 M.L.J. 177 (S.C), State of Punjab and others vs. S.C.Chadha, the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows: " .......... 9. The sole object of such rules being that any such claim regarding correction, of the date of birth should not be made or entertained after decades, especially on the eve of superannuation of such public servant. In the case of State of Assam Vs. Daksha Prasad Deka, (1970) 3 S.C.C.624, this court said that the date of the compulsory retirement: "must in our judgment, be determined on the basis of the service record and not on what the respondent claimed to be his date of birth, unless the service record is first corrected consistently with the appropriate procedure." 11. An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Courts, Tribunal or the High court keeping in view only the public servant concerned....Before any such direction is issued or declaration made, the Court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be within at least a reasonable time. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the court or the Tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their date of birth in the service books....." 9. According to the Petitioner she has sent representations dated 09.09.1985, 20.10.1986, 211. 1989 and 10. 1990(Xerox copy of these petitions filed in the additional type set of papers). In the impugned order the 3rd Respondent has clearly stated that these applications were not received by the office of CEO. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has laid emphasis upon the alleged endorsement made by the Head Master of Girls Higher Secondary School, Attur. Except the alleged endorsement of the Head Master the Petitioner had not produced any acceptable evidence that she has sent application on 312. 1985, 20.10.1986 and 011. 1987. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of the court to the proceedings of 3rd Respondent dated 08.04.1996, wherein the 3rd Respondent has referred to the enclosure of the Petitioner i.e., the application for alteration of Date of Birth dated 010. 1985. 3rd Respondent has only referred to the representation of the Petitioner and nothing more than that. The Petitioner cannot take advantage of mentioning of her alleged representation dated 010. 1985 in the proceedings of the CEO dated 08.04.1996. 11. When the Petitioner has not made the application for alteration of Date of Birth within a stipulated period of five years from entering into service. Petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. 12. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.