JUDGMENT :- Ghulam Mohammed, J. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 30-06-2008 passed in O.A.No.4374 of 2007 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The details relevant and necessary for deciding this writ petition are that the petitioner herein filed the above O.A. challenging the Government Memo No.2566/Estt.A1/2006, dated 16-07-2008 by which her request for correction of date of birth was rejected. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Balwadi teacher on 06-08-1979 vide proceedings dated 30-07-1979 issued by fourth respondent and the said post was converted as Supervisor and that her date of birth as per Secondary School Certificate is 17-09-1955, whereas in the provisional seniority list issued by fourth respondent, it was mentioned as 04-02-1953. It is the case of the petitioner that she had submitted a representation on 26-08-2000, along with Secondary School Certificate, to the second respondent informing that her correct date of birth is 17-09-1955, but due to clerical error, it was wrongly recorded as 17-09-1950 in the service register. The petitioner submits that when the seniority list was published, her date of birth was wrongly shown and she made a representation again on 10-02-2001, which was rejected vide proceedings dated 26-06-2002 issued by the second respondent and the same was challenged in O.A.No.9054 of 2002. The said O.A. was disposed of directing the respondent concerned to consider the representation and pass orders, pursuant to which the order in O.A.No.4374 of 2007 had been passed confirming the rejection of the representation. The official respondents mainly contended that the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 17-09-1950 in the service register and after putting in nearly 20 years of service, she seeks correction of date of birth in the service book, that too at the fag end of her service. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, held that the petitioner has not sought the said correction within reasonable time and she made a representation in the year 2001, which is about 22 years after her appointment and 17 years after Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 came into force and accordingly dismissed the O.A. Hence, this writ petition is filed by the applicant. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents and perused the record. 4. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents and perused the record. 4. Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner had submitted Secondary School Certificate which shows that her date of birth is 17-09-1955, but the authority erred in rejecting the request for correction of date of birth mainly on the ground that she has not made such request within reasonable time. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to Rule 2(5) of the said Rules and contended that the date of birth entered in the service register can be altered in the case of bonafide clerical error, under the orders of the Government and no time limit is prescribed for correction of clerical mistakes, the Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents contended that the date of birth in the seniority list was shown as 04-02-1953 by mistake, and it cannot be the criterion and that once an employee had joined the service, the entries made in the service register at the time of joining will be the conclusive proof. Learned Government Pleader also contended that the petitioner had made the representation at the fag end of her service and there is no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order and the Tribunal rightly declined to grant relief, especially when she was aware of the fact and kept quiet during the course of service. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by both the counsel and perused the record including the service register. 7. The point for consideration is whether the date of birth of the petitioner in the service book was recorded wrongly as 17-09-1950 due to clerical error and what is the correct date of birth? 8. The petitioner claims that her date of birth is 17-09-1955 on the strength of Secondary School Certificate, which is filed at page-59 of the material papers. A perusal of the said certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, shows that the petitioner had studied in Z.P.H.S., Burgpalli, and appeared in S.S.C. examination in June, 1971 and the date of birth is recorded as 17-09-1955, so also the bonafide and conduct certificate. A perusal of the said certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, shows that the petitioner had studied in Z.P.H.S., Burgpalli, and appeared in S.S.C. examination in June, 1971 and the date of birth is recorded as 17-09-1955, so also the bonafide and conduct certificate. The petitioner also made a representation seeking correction of date of birth in the service book along with the Secondary School Certificate. In fact, the Regional Deputy Director, Women Development and Child Welfare, Hyderabad, had addressed Lr.No.525/A/2004, dated 02-06-2005, to the Director, Women Development and Child Welfare, Hyderabad, requesting that the Government may be addressed for issue of permission for alteration of date of birth as 17-09-1955 instead of 17-09-1950 recorded in the service book of the petitioner as it is purely a clerical error. Pursuant thereto, the said Director had sent a communication vide Lr.No.4080.C1/03, dated 14-03-2006 to the Government seeking permission to correct the date of birth as 17-09-1955 in place of 17-09-1950 as recorded in the service book. Thus, it appears that the matter was pending with the Government from 2006 onwards and ultimately, the Government rejected the petitioner’s request in terms of Rule 4(1) and (2) of the said Rules. The Government had merely rejected the representation without assigning any reasons. Rule 2(5) of the said Rules clearly stipulates that the date of birth entered in the service record, shall not be altered except in the case of bonafide clerical error, under the orders of the Government. The immediate superior authority, under whose control the petitioner is working, had clearly stated that her date of birth was wrongly entered due to clerical error and that no time limit is fixed for correcting the bonafide clerical error and as such, we are of the considered view that Rule 4(1) and (2) of the Rules are not applicable to the facts of the present case. When the authority had stated that there is a clerical error, the Government ought to have given permission to correct the date of birth basing on the Secondary School Certificate produced by the petitioner. It is to be noted that the clerical error had crept in much prior to the Rules came into the force. When the authority had stated that there is a clerical error, the Government ought to have given permission to correct the date of birth basing on the Secondary School Certificate produced by the petitioner. It is to be noted that the clerical error had crept in much prior to the Rules came into the force. We do not see any compelling reason to disbelieve the official correspondence between the two officers in the course of discharging the official duties, especially when there is a categorical admission that the date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly entered in the service book due to clerical error. Further, the petitioner on coming to know about incorrect date of birth, probably when the seniority list was published, had immediately made a representation for its rectification and thus, the delay is not entirely attributable to the petitioner. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly entered in the service register due to clerical error and the correct date of birth as per Secondary School Certificate is 17-09-1955, which is supported by the internal communication between the higher officials. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside, and consequently O.A. stands allowed thereby setting aside the Government Memo dated 16-07-2007. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed at the stage of admission.