Judgment :- M.CHOCKALINGAM, J. This writ application is brought forth seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the orders of the third respondent, the Principal District Munsif, Virudhachalam and also the consequential order of the second respondent, the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore made in respect of the date of birth. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the application is perused. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also for the respondent. The counter filed by the 2nd respondent is also perused. 3. The only grievance ventilated by the petitioner is that her date of birth was mistakenly entered as 13.1.1952 instead of 13.1.1953 in the Service Records. Hence, it has to be rectified and she should get the benefit of the same. 4. The case of the petitioner in short is that she joined the course of Degree of Bachelor of Arts in the year 1975 and on completion of the same, she got the certificate; that she was selected by the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission and she was posted as an Examiner of copies in Prohibition Court, Ulundurpet and she was transferred to different places and got promoted as Junior Assistant on 10.1.2007; that when she was working so, she was informed that she was going to attain superannuation, after a month therefrom; that on verification of the Service Records, she came to know that the date of birth was wrongly entered as 13.1.1952 instead of 13.1.1953; and that under such circumstances, she made a representation to the second respondent, the District Judge of Cuddalore through the third respondent, the District Munsif, Virudhachalam and the same was rejected. Hence, the writ application has been brought forth. 5. The only contention putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner was actually born on 13.1.1953. When she joined in the College to undergo the Degree of Bachelor of Arts at Cuddalore, she gave a declaration as to the date of birth and it has been correctly entered as 13.1.1953. The said document would be indicative of the fact that her correct date of birth is 13.1.1953 and it has been mistakenly entered as 13.1.1952 in the service records. All the records pertaining to the age was actually in the custody of the Department, earlier, in the Education Department and thereafter, in the Judicial Department, to which, she had no access. All the records pertaining to the age was actually in the custody of the Department, earlier, in the Education Department and thereafter, in the Judicial Department, to which, she had no access. When she was informed that she is going to attain superannuation, necessity arose to verify the records. Then she came to know that there was wrong entry made in the service records. The learned counsel would further submit that when it came to the knowledge of the petitioner, immediately, she made a representation to the second respondent pointing the same through the District Munsif, the third respondent herein. Thus, the representation was made within the stipulated time. Hence, it is a fit case where the prayer sought for has got to be ordered. 6. The Court heard the learned counsel for the respondent on the above contentions. 7. The court is unable to see any merit in the writ application for more reasons than one. According to the petitioner, she was born on 13.1.1953 and not on 13.1.1952. In order to prove the said relevant fact, she has not produced either the birth certificate or the Secondary School Leaving Certificate. The answer given by the petitioner counsel that those documents were not available with her and they are yet to be traced. Thus, the only material, according to the petitioner counsel is that the certificate issued by the College, where she got B.A. Degree, in which, her date of birth was entered as 13.1.1953. In the absence of the first two documents namely, Birth certificate and also the S.S.L.C. certificate, the Court is of the opinion that the contention of the petitioner, cannot be accepted. Apart from that, when she joined the service, she should have given the declaration as to the age, community etc. She has given her date of birth as 13.1.1952. 8. It is pertinent to point out that as per the relevant Rule Annexure-II, Party II, Clause-3 of the Fundamental Rules of the Tamil Nadu Government, a Government Servant (Grade-C and Grade-D) is entitled to verify the Service Register on the request made. Apart from that, the Rule would clearly indicate that the Head of the Department would allow the Government servants to examine the Service book at the time when they desire to do so. It is the case where the petitioner has been in service all along the period in different Courts. Apart from that, the Rule would clearly indicate that the Head of the Department would allow the Government servants to examine the Service book at the time when they desire to do so. It is the case where the petitioner has been in service all along the period in different Courts. It is a matter of surprise to note that when she was informed that she is about to attain superannuation within a month, she had occasion to verify the service records and she came to know that her date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 13.1.1952 instead of 13.1.1953. In the absence of any proof to establish the relevant fact to accept the contention of the petitioner that she was born on 13.1.1953, the learned District Judge is perfectly correct in rejecting the representation made by the petitioner. 9. Under such circumstances, the writ petition do not carry any merits whatsoever and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1,2 & 3 of 2010 are closed.