Judgment :- Heard Mr.M.Pari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy, learned Government Advocate taking notice for respondents 1 and 2 making submissions on instructions and Mr.C.S.Sundararaj, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the third respondent. 2. The writ petition is for a direction against the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the educational certificates and passport based on the birth certificate issued by the Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation. As per the birth certificate issued by the Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation, the date of birth of the petitioner is stated as 12. 1983. However, when the petitioner was admitted in the school, the date of birth has been given as 12. 1984 and that date has continued in the S.S.L.C. as well as H.S.C. transfer certificates and mark sheets. 3. Based on the educational certificates, it appears that the petitioner has applied for passport to the third respondent. In the application, the petitioner has stated her date of birth as 12. 1984. Finding the discrepancy, the third respondent has returned the application stating that as per the municipal records the date of birth is 12. 1983, while in the school records it is stated as 12. 1984, as it has been indicated in the passport application also. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that only after that the petitioner came to know about the discrepancy and immediately thereafter she has made representation to all the respondents on 1. 2009 requesting them to effect change of her date of birth as 12. 1983 instead of 12. 1984 in the school records. 5. Mrs.Dakshayini Reddy, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 would submit that, as per the relevant guidelines issued in this regard, any student who passes out the Plus 2 examination will be entitled to make an application for correcting the date of birth in the certificate within five years. According to her, in the present case, the petitioner has passed the Plus 2 examination conducted in March, 2003 and she should have filed the application on or before the year 2008, however, the application came to be filed only on 1. 2009. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is seen that the petitioner claims to have the date of birth altered based on the municipal records, wherein the date of birth has been stated as 12. 2009. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is seen that the petitioner claims to have the date of birth altered based on the municipal records, wherein the date of birth has been stated as 12. 1983, only for the purpose of passport and visa to be obtained to leave for Australia. In such circumstances, the normal order which will be passed by this Court that the party should go to the Civil Court for the purpose of rectification of the records is not going to serve any purpose. It is a rarest circumstance in which this Court should exercise the jurisdiction. That was also the view taken by the Supreme Court in R.K.Jangra v. State of Punjab, [2009] 5 SCC 703. In that case, the petitioner therein has joined service as early as in 1980 and after putting up service of 14/15 years, he made an application to the Registrar of the Punjab University for the purpose of altering the date of birth by which he will be getting benefit of one more year of service. As per the Service Regulations of the Government of Punjab which was amended by the Punjab Civil Service Rules, any person who desires to have the alteration of date of birth in the service registers should file application within two years from the date of coming into force of the said Rule which came into force from 26. 1994 and the application filed by the petitioner therein was rejected by the Punjab University on the basis that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the regulations. When that was challenged before the High Court, the High Court passed usual order relegating the party to avail the ordinary remedy before a Civil Court, since it required appreciation of evidence and so on and it was in those circumstances, when the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances held that in such circumstances it is not proper for the Court to relegate the party to the Civil Court in which event the very purpose of coming to the Court will be lost. The Supreme Court has held as follows: "12. The Supreme Court has held as follows: "12. In view of the above discussion, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, we direct the competent authority/Principal Secretary, Department of Irrigation, Punjab, Chandigarh to consider the representation filed by the appellant on 5. 1987, in the light of documents and materials produced by him, within a month from the date of this order, if the representation made by the appellant is available with the respondent untrammelled by any of the observations made in the earlier orders." 7. It is true that the judgment of the Apex Court in that case was on the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. But, applying the yardstick laid down by the Supreme Court in that case to the facts of the present case, I am of the view that equally this is a case where no useful purpose will be served in relegating the petitioner to the civil court for the purpose of leaving the country to settle in a foreign country. Further, it is made clear that the present writ petition is only for the purpose of getting visa and not for any other purpose. 8. Even by taking the stand of respondents 1 and 2 that within five years such application should be filed, it is seen that the petitioner has appeared in Plus 2 examination conducted in March, 2003 and the examination results would have been published in May, 2003 and the petitioner has made application on 1. 2009 and there is only few months delay in respect of the period of limitation granted under the guidelines which are governing respondents 1 and 2 regarding alteration of date of birth. 9. Under the peculiar circumstances involved in this case, I am of the considered view that the first respondent and the Director of Government Examination, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600006 should be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 1. 2009 in its proper perspective and pass appropriate orders regarding alteration of date of birth taking it as a special case and consequently, the third respondent should be directed to act as per the said order passed by the first respondent and the Director of Government Examination, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600006 as stated above and correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the passport, if there are no other legal impediments. In the result, this writ petition stands ordered with a direction to the first respondent and the Director of Government Examination, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai600006 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 1. 2009 for alteration of date of birth from 12. 1984 to 12. 1983 in its proper perspective and pass orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the third respondent shall, taking into consideration the representation of the petitioner dated 1. 2009 and the order passed by the first respondent and the Director of Government Examination, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600006 as stated above, pass appropriate orders in respect of alteration of date of birth in the passport, if there are no other legal impediments and such orders shall be passed within two weeks. It is made clear that this order is passed only in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be cited as a precedent in other cases. No costs.