Judgment : The Petitioner, K. Michael Antony, was appointed as Post Graduate Assistant (Economics) on 7. 1980 in St.Joseph Higher Secondary School, Thiruthuapuram, Later, he was promote and appointed as Head Master with effect with from 6. 2000 in the fifth respondent school, under the same Management. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 35. 2003. 2. When the petitioner was serving as a Headmaster in the fifth respondent school, he having stumbled on Church records and other connected documents, came to know that his correct date of birth was 29. 1944 and not 20.1.1944. He approached the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, Kanyakumari District for necessary direction to the Registrar of Births and Death and got a birth Certificate under the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 certifying his correct date of birth as 29. 1944. 3. The petitioner applied to the respondents 2 to 5 to carry out the correction of his date of birth in the Service Register as per the Birth Certificate. On the ground that the petitioner approached the fourth respondent after a lapse of five years from the date of joining service, the application for such a request was rejected. The representation made to the respondents 1 and 2 did not evoke any response. Therefore, the petitioner instituted a suit in O.S. No. 6703 of 1999 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai seeking a declaration that his date of birth was 29. 1944 and also for a consequential injunction, directing respondents 1, 2 and 4 herein to effect such correction in the service register. The suit was decreed on 12. 2009 in absentia of the respondents 1, 2 and 4 herein. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents 4 and 5 requesting them to effect the correction in the Service Register in terms of the Decree passed by the Competent Court. The fourth respondent rejected the plea of the petitioner on the ground that there was no provisions under the rule for correcting the date of birth in the service register after a lapse of 5 years from the date of entry into the service. 4. The fourth respondent rejected the plea of the petitioner on the ground that there was no provisions under the rule for correcting the date of birth in the service register after a lapse of 5 years from the date of entry into the service. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the fifth respondent school is an aided minority private school governed by the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and therefore, Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules will have no application. It is contended that inasmuch to the alteration of date of birth found in the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Regulation Act , 1973, the petitioner is entitled to seek for alteration of his date of birth in terms of the decree he has obtained from the competent Court. 5. The fifth respondent school virtually sails with the stand taken by the writ petitioner. Respondents 1 to 4 would contend that as per Rule 49(c) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, they are not bound to entertain any application for alteration of date of birth received after lapse of 5 years from the date of entry into service. Therefore, it is submitted that respondents 1 to 4 have rightly rejected the representation made by the petitioner. 6. It is found that the petitioner was serving as Headmaster in the fifth respondent aided private minority school. Service conditions of the Private Schools is found in the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent, there is no provision under the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 regarding alteration of date of birth of an employee who has entered into service of the private school. 7. Ona perusal of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, it is found that Rule 49 deals with the alteration of date of birth of an employee in the services of the Government of Tamil Nadu. 8. The question that arises for consideration is whether the provisions under the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India would apply to private schools. 9. 8. The question that arises for consideration is whether the provisions under the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India would apply to private schools. 9. Firstly, it is found that the service conditions of the employees in a private school are governed by the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. The preamble portion of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules would read that the rules framed in exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India would apply to the members of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services. The petitioner who was working as Headmaster of a Private Schools cannot be stated to have served under the State Subordinate Services. 10. This Court, in the Director of College Education. College Road, Chennai and two Others v. Geldon Wifred Vinla and Another (2009) 2 TLNJ 101 (Civil), has held that the Government Order which was issued in exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India would be made applicable only to the Government servants viz., the teachers who are employed in Government schools and not to the teachers in Private Schools as they are governed only by the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the rules made thereunder. 11. Under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of a State has the authority to make rules regulating recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed in public service in connection with the affairs of the State. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules would apply to the teachers working in Private Schools. 12. As already pointed out, there is no regulation governing the aspect of alteration of date of birth found in the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (regulation) Act, 1973. Also, there is no limitation prescribed for presentation of any representation seeking alteration of date of birth. .13. The petitioner approached the competent civil Court and obtained a decree for declaration of his date of birth as 29. 1944 and also a mandatory injunction as against respondents 1, 2 and 4 herein to correct the said date of birth in the service records of the petitioner. .13. The petitioner approached the competent civil Court and obtained a decree for declaration of his date of birth as 29. 1944 and also a mandatory injunction as against respondents 1, 2 and 4 herein to correct the said date of birth in the service records of the petitioner. Respondents 1, 2 and 4 preferred I.A. No.3639 of 2002 in O.S. No.6703 of 1999 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai praying to set aside the ex parte decree passed as against them. But, the same was dismissed by the said Court on 26. 2003 and as a result of which, the ex parte decree passed as against the respondents 1, 2 and 4 has attained finality. 14. Inasmuch as there is no limitation for making any representation praying for alteration of date of birth as found in Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, respondents should not have rejected the representation made by the petitioner observing that the representation was barred by limitation. Secondly, the competent Court has not only declared the date of birth of the petitioner but a mandatory injunction was also issued as against the respondents to correct the service records with respect to the correct date of birth of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the respondents are bound to give effect to the decree passed by the competent Court. 115. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan (1994) 6 SCC 302 : (1995) 1MLJ 22, Supreme Court has held that where there is a rule prescribing limitation for making an application for alteration of date of birth in the service records, the employee should make an application for alteration of date of birth in the service records, the employee should make an application for correction within the period stipulated. The rejection of an application for correction of date of birth filed by the employee beyond the period prescribed by the Government, after considering various facts and circumstances of the case, cannot he the subject matter of judicial review inasmuch as the administrative Tribunal has no power to re-appreciate the evidence to reach a different conclusion. 116. The rejection of an application for correction of date of birth filed by the employee beyond the period prescribed by the Government, after considering various facts and circumstances of the case, cannot he the subject matter of judicial review inasmuch as the administrative Tribunal has no power to re-appreciate the evidence to reach a different conclusion. 116. The aforesaid ratio will not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, which governs the service conditions of the employees working in Private Schools, does not prescribe any limitation for submitting the application praying for alteration of date of birth. Secondly, that was not a case where a competent Court passed a decree in the absence of any period of limitation prescribed under the rules governing services of the employees of the private schools. .17. The learned counsel also would refer to the decision of this Court in M. Rajasekar v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government Cooperation. Food and Consumer Protection Department and Another (W.P. No.24880 of 2006 dated 12. 2009). That was a case where the Government employee governed by the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules got a declaratory decree with respect to his real date of birth even before he entered into Government service. Therefore, the appointing authorities were not parties in the said suit filed by the petitioner. A representation was given by the employee to the Government to recognize his date of birth as decreed by the Court. The Government though it fit to enquire into the matter by Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai. It came to light that the petitioner therein was born to a Village Munsif and a School Teacher. Based on the enquiry report submitted by the RDO, Madurai, the Government came to a decision that there was no possibility of making a wrong entry of the date of birth of the petitioner therein in the school records. In such circumstances, this Court in the aforesaid decision held that the petitioner therein who was a Government Servant governed by the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, cannot lawfully canvas for alteration of date of birth in the guise of a decree which he has obtained before ever he entered into service. 118. In such circumstances, this Court in the aforesaid decision held that the petitioner therein who was a Government Servant governed by the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, cannot lawfully canvas for alteration of date of birth in the guise of a decree which he has obtained before ever he entered into service. 118. Inthe instant case, as already pointed out by this Court, Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules governing alteration of date of birth would have no application to the employees serving in private schools. Further, a decree has been obtained from a competent Court to alter the date of birth in the service register. Attempt made by the respondents to set aside the decree obtained by the Court did not also fructify. Therefore, the above ratio will not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. 119. In view of the above, the order passed by the fourth respondent wrongly applying the limitation period prescribed under the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and the Government Order issued thereunder without considering the decree obtained from a competent Court stands quashed. It is found that the petitioner continued in service till he attained superannuation on 35. 2003 as per the interim orders passed by this Court. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had already obtained the terminal benefits and monthly pension on the basis of his undisputed date of retirement. The petitioner is entitled to pay and allowances and all other attendant benefits up to 35. 2003, according to his correct date of birth viz., 29. 1944. Therefore, a direction is issued to the respondents to pay the arrears of other attendant benefits treating his date of retirement as 35. 2003 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 120. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. W.M.P. No. 7875 of 2002 is closed.