Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash the orders of the First Respondent dated 6.3.1996 and 31.5.2006 and that of the Second Respondent dated 9.6.2006 and direct the Respondents to alter the date of birth of the Petitioner as ‘5.2.1953’ instead of ‘2.6.1948’ in the service register and grant all consequential service benefits. 2. According to the Petitioner, he is the first son born to his parents, who are illiterate. He underwent school education upto 5th standard in an unrecognized school and subsequently joined in recognized school. The Petitioner states that at the time of joining the school, his parents inadvertently gave his date of birth as 2.6.1948. Petitioner has got two sisters and one younger brother and they are born in the years 1957, 1963 and 1967. The Petitioner appeared for the examination conducted by T.N.P.S.C. for selection to the post of Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service in the year 1985. He was selected and appointed as Assistant and was subsequently promoted as Assistant Section Officer in the year 1992. During the year 1995 he was appointed in Tamil Nadu Municipal Subordinate Service on transfer of service. When this Writ Petition was filed he was serving as Municipal Commissioner. The Petitioner retired from service on 30.6.2006 as per his date of birth entry made in the service register. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that after his entry into service on 7.1.1985, he submitted a representation on 12.5.1988 to alter his date of birth in the Service Register and the department directed the Petitioner to Apply in the prescribed format and further details called for were also furnished on 8.1.1993. Enquiry under Rule 49, of the General Rules was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakkudi, and without reference to the said report the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai-5, sent a report to the Government, based on which the Government rejected the request of the Petitioner by order dated 6.3.1996. Petitioner filed Petition to reconsider the said decision by sending a representation on 11.8.2003 followed with reminder dated 12.4.2004, which was also rejected by order dated 31.5.2006 and the same was communicated to the Petitioner through the Second Respondent by proceedings dated 9.6.2006. Against the said orders this Writ Petition is filed. 4. Petitioner filed Petition to reconsider the said decision by sending a representation on 11.8.2003 followed with reminder dated 12.4.2004, which was also rejected by order dated 31.5.2006 and the same was communicated to the Petitioner through the Second Respondent by proceedings dated 9.6.2006. Against the said orders this Writ Petition is filed. 4. The Respondents have filed a Counter Affidavit by stating that based on the report of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai-5, the Government rejected the claim of the Petitioner seeking alteration of date of birth in his Service Register by considering his Application, which was submitted within five years of his entry into service. It is also stated therein that the reports submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakuddi dated 30.10.1991 and 13.7.1992 were considered by the Principal Commissioner while sending his report to the Government. In birth extract produced, by the Petitioner it was noticed that the name of the father was initially recorded as ‘Kayambu Thevar’, which was subsequently corrected as ‘Kumaraiah Thevar’. In the Birth Register extract copy of 1953, an entry with Sl.No.4 had been inserted and Sl.No.1 to 7 has been renumbered as 1 to 8 after insertion of Sl.No.4 the Birth Register pertaining to the year 1948-49 were not available to confirm as to any child was born to the parents of the Petitioner on 2.6.1948. Petitioner has already availed the age concession while Appearing for S.S.L.C. examination during the year 1968. The original date viz., 2.6.1948 and the claimed date of birth i.e., 5.2.1953 is having a gap of more than four years, which leads to genuine doubt. The Petitioner failed to produce unimpeachable evidence in support of his claim. Hence, the claim was rejected and the Petitioner also retired from service. The report submitted by the Principal Commissioner, Revenue Administration, Chennai-5, to the Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Chennai-9 dated 19.8.1992 is also filed wherein the Petitioner’s claim was recommended to be rejected. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Petitioner, having made the Application in time and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, having submitted a report in his favour, the Principal Commissioner, Revenue Administration was not justified in sending adverse report to the Government to reject the claim of the Petitioner. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Petitioner, having made the Application in time and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, having submitted a report in his favour, the Principal Commissioner, Revenue Administration was not justified in sending adverse report to the Government to reject the claim of the Petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that if the Writ Petitioner is allowed, the Petitioner will get monetary benefits even though he was permitted to retire on 30.6.2006 and he will also get revision of pension. The learned Senior Counsel also filed written arguments to reiterate his contentions raised in the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. 6. The learned Government Advocate submitted that if really the Petitioner’s year birth is 1953, Petitioner was not eligible to appear for the 11th Standard S.S.L.C examination held in the year 1968 as his age would be only 15 years. The Petitioner having relied on the date of birth entry in the S.S.L.C certificate and applied for appointment to the post of Assistant, after joining duty as Assistant, he is estopped from submitting an Application to correct the date of birth. In support of his contentions, the learned Government Advocate cited the judgments of the Supreme Court Union of India v. C. Ramaswamy, 1997 (4) SCC 647 and State of Gujarat v. Vali Mohammed Dosabhai Sindhi, 2006 (6) SCC 537 . The learned Government Advocate also submitted that as long as the date of birth entry made in the S.S.L.C. certificate is not corrected, it is not open to the Petitioner to file an Application to correct the date of birth entry in the service register and therefore, the Application filed by the Petitioner seeking alteration of date of birth is not maintainable under Rule 49-A of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 7. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the Respondents. 8. The claim of the Petitioner is that his actual date of birth is 5.2.1953 and not 2.6.1948. In the S.S.L.C. certificate, Petitioner’s date of birth is mentioned as 2.6.1948. The Petitioner Applied for examination conducted by the T.N.P.S.C. wherein the Petitioner had mentioned his date of birth as 2.6.1948. 8. The claim of the Petitioner is that his actual date of birth is 5.2.1953 and not 2.6.1948. In the S.S.L.C. certificate, Petitioner’s date of birth is mentioned as 2.6.1948. The Petitioner Applied for examination conducted by the T.N.P.S.C. wherein the Petitioner had mentioned his date of birth as 2.6.1948. On passing the said examination, Petitioner was selected and appointed as Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat service in the year 1985. Service register was opened for the Petitioner, wherein his ‘date of birth is entered as 2.6.1948 based on the entry made in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate. 9. The claim of the Petitioner is that he has filed Application seeking correction of date of birth within five years of his entry into Government Service. The said Application was filed by the Petitioner under Rule 49-A of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. The said rule reads as follows: “49-A. Correction of date of birth-(1) After a person has entered service, if it is found that his date of birth entered in his Service Register is different from that entered in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate or Military Discharge Certificate, which may be due to some clerical error or otherwise wrong entries, application for correction of such clerical error or wrong entries, shall be made to the appointing authority. Such corrections in the Service Register shall be made straightway by the appointing authority. If the date of birth in the Service Register was entered on the basis of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate, correction of clerical error or wrong entries shall be made only with reference to Secondary School Leaving Certificate and if the date of birth in the Service Register was entered on the basis of the Military Discharge Certificate, correction of clerical error or wrong entries shall be made only with reference to the Military Discharge Certificate contain different dates of birth, the date of birth entered in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate shall be accepted. But the date of birth entered in the Military Discharge Certificate shall be accepted in the absence of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate. But the date of birth entered in the Military Discharge Certificate shall be accepted in the absence of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate. (2) Where the date of birth of a person, whose qualification is less than the minimum general educational qualification, is entered in the Service Register on the basis of the Medical Certificate or the Transfer Certificate obtained from the school in which he studied or an affidavit sworn before a Magistrate and if there is any error in the entry so made, the appointing authority may, on application, make necessary correction only with reference to the original record on the basis of which an entry relating to the date of birth is made in the Service Register.” From the perusal of the above said rule, under which the Petitioner applied for correction of date of birth, it is clear that after entering into service, a person can submit an Application for correction of date of birth entered into the Service Register, if it is found that the date of birth entered in the Service Register is different from the date of birth entered in the S.S.L.C. Certificate or Military Discharge Certificate, which may have arisen due to some clerical mistake or otherwise. If the date of birth in the Service Register was entered on the basis of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate, there is no provision to submit Application seeking correction of date of birth so long as the entry made in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate is not changed. 10. Here in this case, till date the Petitioner has not chosen to take any steps to correct the alleged error in the date of birth entered in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate. Hence the Application submitted by the Petitioner is not maintainable under Rule 49-A. Therefore, the Petitioner’s Application can only be construed as an Application filed under Rule 49. Even assuming that the Application is entertainable which was submitted within five years, there is no compulsion on the part of the State Government to alter the age as per the request of the Petitioner. 11. Even assuming that the Application is entertainable which was submitted within five years, there is no compulsion on the part of the State Government to alter the age as per the request of the Petitioner. 11. Similar issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.24880 of 2006 dated 17.2.2009 wherein in spite of getting declaratory decree from the District Munsif Court stating different date as date of birth than one entered in the school record and Service Register, the school records having not been corrected, this Court upheld the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Original Application, by the following the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Vali Mohammed Dosabhai Sindhi, 2006 (6) SCC 537 . In para 12 of the decision the SC held as follows: “12. An Application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the Courts, the Tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose the promotion for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. This is certainly an important and relevant aspect, which cannot be lost sight of by the Court or the Tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the Respondent and that too within a reasonable time as provided in the rules governing the service, the Court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction or make a declaration on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued or declaration made, the Court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any Rule or order. If no Rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such Application has to be filed, then such Application must be within at least a reasonable time. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth in his service book. In many cases it is a part of the strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the Court or the Tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in respect of their dates of birth in the service books. By this process, it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if ultimately, their Applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after the date of superannuation. The Court or the Tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief or continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and thereby caused injustice to his immediate junior.” In the decision in Union of India v. C. Ramaswamy, 1997 (4) SCC 647 , similar provision was considered i.e. whether a person, after availing the benefits by giving one date of birth and by writing examination and getting appointment, can pray for alteration of date of birth to take further advantage. In paragraphs 25 and 26, the Supreme Court held thus: “25. In matters relating to appointment to service various factors are taken into consideration before making a selection or an appointment. One of the relevant circumstances is the age of the person who is sought to be appointed. In paragraphs 25 and 26, the Supreme Court held thus: “25. In matters relating to appointment to service various factors are taken into consideration before making a selection or an appointment. One of the relevant circumstances is the age of the person who is sought to be appointed. It may not be possible to conclusively prove that an advantage had been gained by representing a date of birth which is different than that which is later sought to be incorporated. But it will not be unreasonable to presume that when a candidate, at the first instance, communicates a particular date of birth there is obviously his intention that his age calculated on the basis of that date of birth should be taken into consideration by the appointing authority for adjudging his suitability for a responsible office. In fact, where maturity is a relevant factor to assess suitability, an older person is ordinarily considered to be more mature and, therefore, more suitable. In such a case, it cannot be said that advantage is not obtained by a person because of an earlier date of birth, if he subsequently claims to be younger in age, after taking that advantage. In such a situation, it would be against public policy to permit such a change to enable longer benefit to the person concerned. This being so, we find it difficult to accept the broad proposition that the principle of estoppel would not apply in such a case where the age of a person who is sought to be appointed may be a relevant consideration to assess his suitability. 26. In such a case, even in the absence of a statutory rule like Rule 16-A, the Principle of Estoppel would apply and the authorities concerned would be justified in declining to alter the date of birth. If such a decision is challenged the Court also ought not to grant any relief even if it is shown that the date of birth, as originally recorded, was incorrect because the candidate concerned had represented a different date of birth to be take in to consideration obviously with a view that that would be to his advantage. Once having secured entry into the 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. Once having secured entry into the 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. To that extent the decision in Manak Chand case does not lay down the correct law.” Same is the view taken by the Supreme Court in the decision Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh v. Megh Raj Garg, 2010 (4) Supreme 464 . In the said decision agitating claim to correct the date of birth in the service register at the fag end of the service of the candidate is deprecated. 12. Here in this case though the Petitioner has applied within a period of five years of his entry into service, the same was rejected as early as on 6.3.1996 and only on 11.8.2003 he has submitted an Application for reconsideration i.e., less than three years prior to his date of retirement. Petitioner retired from service as per his date of birth entry in the Service Register on 30.6.2006. This Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner only on 18.6.2006. Thus, it is beyond doubt that after actual completion of 58 years of age on 1.6.2006 i.e., retirement date of the Petitioner, Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 13. The Petitioner, even though submitted his Application within three years of his entry into service, he has submitted the details in the prescribed form only on 8.1.1993. The Petitioner has taken five years to submit the details in the prescribed form. The said request of the Petitioner was rejected on 6.3.1996. After keeping quiet for over seven years, he has submitted a representation on 11.8.2003, which was rejected on 31.5.2006. No unimpeachable evidence is also produced by the Petitioner. The birth extract produced by the Petitioner also contains corrections and insertions. The same was disbelieved by the Respondent by stating cogent reasons. There is no perversity in the findings/report given by the Second Respondent, which was accepted by the First Respondent. 14. It is true, if the petitioner has made out a strong case, he is entitled to get relief as suggested by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner by way of issuing a mandamus. There is no perversity in the findings/report given by the Second Respondent, which was accepted by the First Respondent. 14. It is true, if the petitioner has made out a strong case, he is entitled to get relief as suggested by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner by way of issuing a mandamus. In the decision reported in Secretary, Cannanore District Muslim Educational Association, Kanpur v. State of Kerala, 2010 (4) Supreme 299 in para 53, it is observed by the Supreme Court that, “where a man has a jus ad rem (a right to a thing) it will be absured, ridiculous and shame to the law, if Courts have no remedy and the only remedy he can have is by mandamus”. Thus, this Court has every power to issue direction if a real and genuine case is made out. 15. On the facts and circumstances narrated above, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the First Respondent as the Petitioner has not made out any case on merits, to alter his date of birth as 5.2.1953 instead from ‘2.6.1948’. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.