Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is filed to set aside the order of the second respondent in his proceedings dated 01.07.2009 in Pa. Moo. No. 17378 / W.1/E1/2000, in and under which, the petitioners request for altering his date of birth from 06.01.1952 to 23.03.1954 is rejected and to further direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to retire from service on 24.03.2012 with service and monetary benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 07.06.1974 through the selection made by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The petitioner has made a representation in the prescribed form to the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Madras on 03.08.1978 within a period of five years from the date of his joining service to alter his date of birth as entered in the service register from 06.01.1952 to 23.03.1954 and the petitioner has in support of his contention enclosed the copy of his birth certificate showing his date of birth as 23.03.1954. The representation was immediately forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer has after due enquiry found his actual date of birth as 23.03.1954 and has forwarded his report to Board of Revenue, to that effect. The Board of Revenue has in its proceedings dated 11.11.1980 accepted the actual date of birth of the petitioner as mentioned in the report of Regional Divisional Officer and has recommended for the alteration of his date of birth accordingly in his service register. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner approached TNPSC for the alteration of his date of birth in his service register. 3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was appointed as P.G. Assistant in the Department of Education by order dated 22.08.1980. That being so, the TNPSC directed the petitioner to approach the second respondent/Director of School Education for getting the alteration of his date of birth in the service register. The petitioner has accordingly made representation along with supportive documents to the second respondent. The second respondent has again forwarded the same to the Board of Revenue who in turn has sought for from the petitioner relevant documents in support of the claim. The petitioner again through the Headmaster of the Government Higher Secondary School, Eriyur, furnished the copy of the documents so required. The second respondent has again forwarded the same to the Board of Revenue who in turn has sought for from the petitioner relevant documents in support of the claim. The petitioner again through the Headmaster of the Government Higher Secondary School, Eriyur, furnished the copy of the documents so required. The Revenue Divisional Officer has also after due enquiry submitted his report dated 20.05.2004 to the Board of Revenue, in and under which, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed a detailed order to the effect that the petitioners actual date of birth is 23.03.1954. The Revenue Divisional Officer has also in detail, set out the reasons and circumstances under which the conclusion is arrived at. The same is also forwarded to the second respondent through third respondent / the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai District. Despite the same, the second respondent has passed the impugned order thereby rejecting the petitioners request for alteration of his date of birth in the service register on the ground that had he been born on 23.03.1954 he would have been on the date of his joining first standard on 06.08.1957, had just completed five years and is hence ineligible to join the same. The correctness of such order is now challenged before this Court. 3(a). The learned counsel for the petitioner would question the correctness of the order stating that the ground based on which the impugned order passed is quite irrelevant and the petitioners claim for his actual date of birth 23.03.1954 is supported by two detailed reports of the Revenue Divisional Officer and two recommendations of Board of Revenue. According to the petitioner, the date of birth entered in the school records was at the instance of his illiterate parents at the time of his admission and he was at that time minor and without having any knowledge about the same as such he cannot be held responsible for the wrong entry made in the school records at the instance of his illiterate parents. 4. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records available herein. 5. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the date of entry is wrongly given as 06.01.1952 in his school records without the knowledge of the petitioner, who was minor at that time. 4. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records available herein. 5. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the date of entry is wrongly given as 06.01.1952 in his school records without the knowledge of the petitioner, who was minor at that time. The petitioner, has, after he joined service as Junior Assistant, made due representation within a period of five years for alteration of his date of birth with supportive documents and he has also made another representation to the appropriate authority for similar relief after his appointment as P.G. Assistant. Both the representations are duly forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer who has after making due enquiry sent a detailed report, to the effect that the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 23.03.1954 and not 06.01.1952. The finding rendered by the Revenue Divisional Officer is also duly considered and accepted by the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue on both occasions forwarded its recommendations for allowing the request made by the petitioner for the alteration of his date of birth in his service records. However, the second respondent has without duly considering the reports and the recommendations of the appropriate authorities which are the outcome of detailed enquiry and without considering the circumstances under which the date of birth is wrongly entered in the school and consequentially in the service record chosen to reject the petitioners request on trivial ground that as per his real date of birth, he has not completed five years and was ineligible to join first standard. 6. In the considered view of this Court, the second respondent ought to have considered the petitioners request in the light of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the recommendations of Board of Revenue whereas the ground on which the impugned order passed is totally out side the scope of issue. In the event of the same being is accepted, is likely to nullify and invalidate the very appointment of the petitioner. Thus way, the impugned order is highly improper, arbitrary and unreasonable and cannot be factually allowed to stand. 7. In the result, the impugned order dated 01.07.2009 in Pa. Moo. In the event of the same being is accepted, is likely to nullify and invalidate the very appointment of the petitioner. Thus way, the impugned order is highly improper, arbitrary and unreasonable and cannot be factually allowed to stand. 7. In the result, the impugned order dated 01.07.2009 in Pa. Moo. No. 17378 / W.1/E1/2000, is set aside with consequential direction issued to the second respondent to alter the petitioners date of birth from 06.01.1952 to 23.03.1954 in his service register and consequently allowing him to retire from service with all the benefits including re-induction in service with service and monetary benefits in accordance with the same. The second respondent is directed to alter the date of birth and to induct the petitioner in service with all service and monetary benefits within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.