Judgment :- The petitioner is working as a Tahsildar at Mettur. He joined the Government service as Junior Assistant on 31.10.1985. As per his date of birth in the service record, his age is 55 years and he is likely to retire after three years. The date of birth given in his service record at the time of joining the service was 26.3.1952. But, according to the petitioner, he was born on 1.6.1954. The petitioner claims that while he was admitted to the School, he was only three years old, but in order to admit him in the School, his parents have given his age as 6 years. Therefore, he sent a representation on 30.10.2009 to the 2nd respondent Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Chennai to alter his date of birth. 2. The rules relating to alteration of date of birth is governed by the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. Rule 49(c) reads as follows: "(c) Any application received after five years after entry into service or any application, which is not supported by entries in Secondary School Leaving Certificate, School, College or University records, birth extract from records of local bodies or military discharge certificates, shall be summarily rejected." 3. Therefore, the petitioners request that his representation dated 30.10.2009 should be considered is clearly barred by the statutory Rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Any attempt made by the petitioner to seek a direction from this Court to consider his representation itself will be in violation of the statutory provisions found under the Act. 4. The Supreme Court very recently in Union of India and others vs. M.K.Sarkar reported in (2010) 2 SCC 59 in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 had observed as follows: "14. The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of respondent without examining the merits, and directing the appellants to consider his representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications. The ill-effects of such directions have been consi0dered by this Court in C.Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining : (SCC Public Prosecutor 122-23 in para 9) "9. The courts/Tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any decision on rights and obligations of parties. The courts/Tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any decision on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realise the consequences of such a direction to consider. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to consider. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The tribunals/High courts routinely entertain such application/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obligerated or ignored." 15. When a belated representation in regard to a "stale" or "dead" issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the "dead" issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a courts direction. Neither a courts direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches. 16. A court or tribunal, before directing "consideration" of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a "live" issue or whether it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue. If it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale " issue or dispute, the court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale " issue or dispute, the court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the court or tribunal deciding to direct "consideration" without itself examining the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect. (emphasis added)" 5. In the light of the same, the Writ Petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.