Judgment : M. DURAISWAMY, J. The above writ appeal arises against the order of the learned single Judge made in 2. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant in the above writ appeal and the respondents are the respondents in the writ petition. 3. The writ petitioner filed W.P. No. 1387 of 1997 for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the respondents in Order No. 7 (6)/91/D(MS) dated 30.7.1996 of the first respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to incorporate the date of birth of the petitioner as 26. 1946 in the service records and accord all service benefits like promotions and other monetary benefits that will lawfully accrued to the petitioner in the service upto 30.6.1999. 4. The brief facts which lead to the filing of the writ petition is as follows; .(i) The petitioner joined service in the Army on 20.12.1970 declaring his date of birth as 17. 1944 and the same has been duly entered into his service register. On 22. 1977, the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent requesting the second respondent to change his date of birth from 17. 1944 to 26. 1946, in the said representation, the petitioner has stated that he was in the Field Area from 23. 1972 to 111. 1979, therefore, he could not make his representation well in advance. .(ii) The respondents, by their letter dated 210. 1977 informed the petitioner that his request could be considered, only if he could get the date of birth corrected in his University records and in the S.S.L.C. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the Civil Court to declare his correct date of birth as 26. 1946, which culminated into a decree dated 3. 1984 in S.A. No. 615 of 1979 declaring his date of birth as 26. 1946. However, the respondents herein were not made as parties in the suit proceedings. (iii) Based on the decree in S.A. No. 615 of 1977 the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 48 Education Department dated 11. 1987, as a special case, directed the Director of School Education, if satisfied himself, to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in his school records, namely, S.S.L.C. Based on the above documents, the petitioner requested the first respondent to correct his date of birth in his service register and other consequential attendant benefits. 1987, as a special case, directed the Director of School Education, if satisfied himself, to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in his school records, namely, S.S.L.C. Based on the above documents, the petitioner requested the first respondent to correct his date of birth in his service register and other consequential attendant benefits. .(iv) The first respondent after considering the representation made by the petitioner, rejected the same by the proceedings dated 30.7.1996, which is impugned in the writ petition. .(v) The Government of India in an Official Memorandum dated 24. 1964 prescribed that no request for change of date of birth would be entertained after the lapse of two years from the date of (i) grant of first commission in the case of commissioned officers and (ii) enrolment in case of JCOs/Other ranks and equivalent in the other two services. The above period of two years to request for change of date of birth expired on 112. 1972 in the case of the petitioner. 5. The learned single Judge, after taking into consideration the materials available on record and-the submissions made by both the learned counsel, dismissed the writ petition. 6. Aggrieved over the order of the learned single Judge, the petitioner has filed the above writ appeal. 7. Heard Mr. Sivan Sivanandaraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. S. Haja Mohideen Gisthi, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the two years limitation period is not applicable to the appellant for the reason that he was not in the Field Area from 23. 1972 to 111. 1979; that the appellant is entitled for the benefits of the decree dated 3. 1984 made in S.A. No. 615 of 1979 and G.O. Ms. No. 48 Education Department dated 11. 1987, therefore the date of birth of the appellant should be taken as 26. 1946; that in view of the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act 1925, the period of two years is not applicable to the appellant. .9. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied on a judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan (1994) 6 SCC 302 : (1995) 1 MLJ 22 , at p. 24 of MLJ: .“7…. .9. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied on a judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan (1994) 6 SCC 302 : (1995) 1 MLJ 22 , at p. 24 of MLJ: .“7…. On a perusal of the judgment, it could be seen that a Government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service register.” .10. Learned counsel for the appellant, also relied on a judgment in Union of India v. C. Ramaswamy and Others AIR 1997 SC 2055 : (1997) 4 SCC 647 . .From the above judgment, it could be seen that the appellant having secured entry into service, possibly in preference to other candidates, then the principle of estoppel would clearly be applicable and relief of change of date of birth can be legitimately denied. 11. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the provisions of the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act 1925 would not be applicable to the petitioner as it is applicable only for defending the suit or appeal filed against the solders. Learned counsel also contended that the decree dated 3. 1984 made in S.A. No. 615 of 1977 and consequential Government order in G.O. Ms. No. 48 Education Department dated 11. 1987 are not binding on the respondents as the respondents are not parties to the proceedings. 12. On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by both the learned counsel, it could be seen that the appellant/petitioner joined the service in the Army on 20.12.1970 declaring his date of birth as 17. 1944 and the same has been duly entered into his service register. As per the Official Memorandum of the Government of India, dated 24. 1964, no request for change of date of birth would be entertained after the lapse of two years from the date of (i) grant of first commission in the case of commissioned officers and (ii) enrolment in case of JCOs/Other ranks and equivalent in the other two services. As per the Official Memorandum of the Government of India, dated 24. 1964, no request for change of date of birth would be entertained after the lapse of two years from the date of (i) grant of first commission in the case of commissioned officers and (ii) enrolment in case of JCOs/Other ranks and equivalent in the other two services. Therefore, the above mentioned period of two years to request for change of date of birth expired on 112. 1972 in the case of the appellant. However, the appellant had chosen to make a representation to the second respondent only on 22. 1977, requesting the second appellant to change the date of birth of the appellant from 17. 1944 to 26. 1946. The appellant in his representation had stated that since he was in the Field Area from 23. 1972 to 111. 1979, the limitation prescribed under the Official Memorandum dated 24. 1964 is not applicable in view of the provisions of the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act 1925. .13. The respondents by their letter dated 210. 1977 informed the appellant that his request for change in the date of birth could be considered only if he could get the date of birth corrected in his University records and in the S.S.L.C. Thereafter, the appellant moved the Civil Court to declare his date of birth as 26. 1946, which culminated into a decree in S.A. No. 615 of 1979 declaring his date of birth as 26. 1946. However, the respondents were not impleaded as parties in the civil proceedings. Based on the above documents, the appellant requested the first respondent to correct his date of birth in his service register and to give other consequential attendant benefits. However, the first respondent rejected the request of the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant did not apply for the correction of the date of birth within two years prescribed by the Government. 14. The government was competent to fix a reasonable time limit after which no application for correction of date of birth can be entertained. The two years period prescribed by the Government is also reasonable. The Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act 1925 is intended to provide special protection in respect of civil and revenue litigation of Indian Soldiers serving under the war condition. The two years period prescribed by the Government is also reasonable. The Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act 1925 is intended to provide special protection in respect of civil and revenue litigation of Indian Soldiers serving under the war condition. The said Act applies to Indian Soldiers service under war conditions and provides for the postponement of civil and revenue proceedings in which, Indian Soldier is a party. Therefore, the two years limitation cannot be extended to the appellant under the Indian soldiers (Litigation) Act 1925 or under any Government Memorandum to make a representation. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondents rejecting the representation is just and proper. 15. Further, in the civil proceedings filed by the appellant to correct the date of birth, the appellant did not implead the respondents i.e., the employer in the said proceedings. Since the appellant, had deliberately failed to implead the respondents as parties in the suit, the decree in S.A. No. 615 of 1979 and the consequential Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 48 Educational Department dated 11. 1987 are not binding on the respondents as the respondents are not parties to the proceedings. 16. In the case on hand, the appellant retired from service on 37. 1996 and the writ petition was filed by the appellant on 21. 1997 i.e. only after the retirement of the appellant. The appellant having joined the service in the year 1970 ought to have given the representation for the change of date of birth within two years. The appellant approached this Court only after his retirement from the service. Further, the entry was made in the service records when the appellant was in service, but he did not make any attempt to have the service record corrected within the period of limitation. Therefore, any amount of evidence produced subsequently cannot have any consequence. 17. In these circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. Therefore, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.