Judgment :- 1. Not only HOROSCOPE is cast on the basis of date of birth, entry of a person into service and exit from the service is also determined based on that. Therefore, the date of birth is a vital information. Here is a case where, the petitioner declared his date of birth as 13.4.1952 which is also reflected in school records as well as other academic records and joined the service on the basis of those documents and suddenly woke up and tried to correct his date of birth as 12.4.1953. This case is only a tip of iceberg where some of the government servants are trying to stick to their seats by altering the date of birth in one way or other thereby preventing the juniors getting promoted and the new generation getting employment. The administration should not be stagnated with the old employees by altering their date of births. 2. The petitioner is a Postgraduate Degree holder in "Agronomy" from the Tamilnadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore and doctorate in the same subject. His date of birth, according to SSLC book, is 13.4.1952. He was appointed on 15.10.1984 as Assistant Professor (Agronomy) at Kumaraperumal Farum Science Centre, Tiruchirapalli. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application to the authorities on 29.9.1989 enclosing a copy of the birth certificate issued by the Sub Registrar Office, Kalakad showing that his date of birth as 12.4.1953 so as to alter his date of birth accordingly. The said application was returned for certain clarifications and the same was represented on 20.11.1991. Again it was returned on 20.2.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a remainder with certain documents on 23.8.2006. Further representations were given on 30.12.2009 and on 31.5.2010. The representation dated 31.5.2010 was rejected by the impugned order stating that there is no provision for change of date of birth at the belated stage. The said order is being challenged before this Court. 3. Mr.S.Namasivayam, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend strenuously by giving proper explanation to the queries put by this Court that the petitioner's plea is bonafide and it is supported by appropriate documents to show that the petitioner was actually born on 12.4.1953 and not on 13.4.1952. The said order is being challenged before this Court. 3. Mr.S.Namasivayam, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend strenuously by giving proper explanation to the queries put by this Court that the petitioner's plea is bonafide and it is supported by appropriate documents to show that the petitioner was actually born on 12.4.1953 and not on 13.4.1952. He further submitted that even if the date of birth is altered, the petitioner is competent to get appointed and would not get change as stated in rule 49 (b) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. He would contend that Rule 49(c) only speaks about the application to be filed within 5 years from the date of appointment. As the petitioner proved his date of birth as 12.4.1953, his request has to be considered. He relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Cidco vs. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevelkar and reported in (2009) 7 SCC 283 , wherein it has been held that the deaths and births register maintained by the statutory authorities raises a presumption of correctness. An un-reported judgment in W.P.No.6884 of 1997 dated 10.3.2003, in the matter of Vijay Amalraj vs. The Chairman, Madras Port Trust and two others and the judgment in W.P.No.268 of 2008 dated 11.12.2009 in S.Visalakshi vs. The Commissioner of Chennai Corporation and two others also laid down the above ratio. The other judgment relied upon is K.C.Kalaikovan vs. Commissioner, Revenue Administration, Chennai-5 and others reported in (2011) 4 MLJ 815 , wherein it has been held that the authorities cannot disown the birth certificate issued by the competent authority unless it is held to be false. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for allowing the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr.Abdul Saleem, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner for alteration of date of birth is belated. Even if the application is stated to be filed in the year 1989, there was no follow up action taken by the petitioner and 14 years got lapsed. Therefore, the petitioner is guilty of latches. He further submitted that the petitioner has not produced the birth register of his younger sister and therefore, the petitioner's claim is liable to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioner is guilty of latches. He further submitted that the petitioner has not produced the birth register of his younger sister and therefore, the petitioner's claim is liable to be rejected. Moreover, in the birth certificate dated 22.9.1989, petitioner's mother name has been referred to as Petchiammal whereas, the legal heir certificate of his father, Meenakshisundaram shows that his mother name is Chellammal and therefore, there is no certainty with regard to the name of the petitioner's mother. In this case, petitioner's claim was rightly rejected by the authority and he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. He relied upon the following judgements: 1) State of Tamilnadu vs. T.V.Venugopalan reported in (1994) 6 SCC 302 . 2) Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department and others vs. R.Kirubakaran reported in 1994 (1) SCC 155 and 3) A recent judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Registrar General, High Court at Madras vs. M.Manickam and others reported in (2011) 9 SCC 245 . 5. Heard the parties and perused the records carefully. The petitioner seeks for alteration of his date of birth after 37 years of his birth. He was not a minor at the time of joining the service. He attained majority as early as in 1970 as per the date of birth recorded in the academic records and service register. If there was any mistake in the date of birth recorded in the school certificate and other certificates, he should have made attempt to change or alter the date of birth at the earliest point of time. Even as per limitation Act, if a minor wants to challenge any alienation made by the guardian or parents or natural guardian, the minor has to challenge the same within three years from the date of his attaining majority. Having completed 18 years and attained majority in 1970, the petitioner was sleeping over the matter. After 19 years, suddenly he woke up with a plea that his date of birth has been wrongly mentioned in the service register and therefore sought for change date of birth as 12.4.1953 instead of 13.4.1952. The claim has to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. 6. As already stated at least at the time of joining service on 15.10.1984, the petitioner should have taken proper care and made a mention about the correct date of birth. The claim has to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. 6. As already stated at least at the time of joining service on 15.10.1984, the petitioner should have taken proper care and made a mention about the correct date of birth. He merely kept quiet and did not make any attempt to change the date of birth in office records. If such a claim was made at the time of entering into service, it would have created problem to him to join the service as he had to undergo the process mentioned in Rule 49(a) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules. Understandably, he did not make any attempt. Even after entering into service, only after four years, the petitioner thought of changing the date of birth and filed the application on 29.9.1989. One another situation can also be visualised if the correct date of birth is not advantageous comparing to recorded date of birth, whether the official would try to change the date of birth? Certainly, he will not do the same as it would not advantageous to him. Therefore it is appropriate to go by the date of birth recorded in school records. 7. One important aspect in this matter is that the petitioner, no doubt applied for change of date of birth on 29.09.1989 within four years of joining the service and the same was returned for certain compliance and was represented on 20.11.1991. Thereafter also the said application was returned, on 20.2.1992 with request to produce a birth certificates of his brothers and sisters. The return dated 20.2.1992 reads as follows: "Thiru M.Arumugam A.P.(Agro) may be requested to produce the Birth Certificates in respect of his younger and elder brother Sisters also along with this proposal and sent for further action at this end " Instead of complying with the returns dated 20.2.1992 by producing the required certificates, the petitioner took his own time and gave reply only on 23.8.2006 viz. after 14 long years. Therefore, there is delay on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner in the said reply stated that the birth certificate of his younger sister is not traceable, as she studied in a private management school at Kalakad which school was wound up. This contention itself would make the claim of the petitioner suspicious and not bonafide one. Therefore, there is delay on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner in the said reply stated that the birth certificate of his younger sister is not traceable, as she studied in a private management school at Kalakad which school was wound up. This contention itself would make the claim of the petitioner suspicious and not bonafide one. When the petitioner is able to procure his birth certificate from the Registrar Office, Kalakkad, showing his date of birth as 12.4.1953, there may not be any impediment for him to get the birth certificate of his younger sister from the said Registrar Office, where the records must be available. 8. There is no explanation from the petitioner as to why the petitioner, having made an application for alteration of date of birth in 1989, followed upto 1992, did not pursue the matter and only after a lapse of 14 years renewed his claim in 2006. This would go to show that only at the fag end of his service, the petitioner wants to get his date of birth altered and to stick on to his position depriving the chances of his juniors. He cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own lapse. 9. It is no doubt that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Cidco Case 2009 (7)SCC 283 held that the births register maintained by the statutory authorities raises presumption of correctness. However, when the authorities, for the purpose of verification, directed the petitioner to produce his younger sister's birth certificate, should have produced the same. Non-production of birth certificate of his younger sister would make the petitioner's claim as doubtful one. Without convincing the authorities with the required documents, the petitioner cannot seek for alteration of date of birth. Secondly the birth certificate of the petitioner shows that her mother name is Petchiammal, whereas the legal heir certificate of his father Meenakshisundaram shows that his mother name as Chellammal. Though, the Power of Attorney dated 7.7.2005 has been produced to show that her name is Chellammal alias Petchiammal, the said document was not produced before the authority and therefore the document cannot be relied upon before the Court. 10. Though, the Power of Attorney dated 7.7.2005 has been produced to show that her name is Chellammal alias Petchiammal, the said document was not produced before the authority and therefore the document cannot be relied upon before the Court. 10. Even at the time of joining of service, he was a major aged about 32 years and he was conscious about his date of birth and having declared his date of birth for appointment, it is not open to the petitioner to go back on the declaration made and tries to change the date of birth already recorded. He is guilty of latches; He has not produced the required documents and therefore, the claim of the petitioner fails. 11. Having benefited from the date of birth as recorded in the school certificate, it is not open to the petitioner to change his date of birth at later point of time, merely because it extends his service. Whether the petitioner would have attempted to alter his date of birth, if he was not in the government service? or in the absence of provision for change of date of birth? Certainly he would not have done this. Since the alteration extends his service, the attempt is being made. 12. No doubt Rule 49 of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules speaks about the alternation of date of birth in which the employees should apply for change of date of birth within five years from the date of joining into service. Existence of provisions like Rule 49 of Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules would only give undue encouragement to the government servant to alter the date of birth after entering into service and based on the so called newly found materials. Fabrication of records to alter the date of birth to extend the service cannot be ruled out. Existence of provisions like Rule 49 of Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules would only give undue encouragement to the government servant to alter the date of birth after entering into service and based on the so called newly found materials. Fabrication of records to alter the date of birth to extend the service cannot be ruled out. Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules is usefully extracted as follows: "49.) Alteration of date of birth ‘(a) If, at the time of appointment, a candidate claims that his date of birth is different from that entered in his S.S.L.C. or Matriculation Register or School records, he shall make an application to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in cases where the appointment is made in consultation with the Commission and in other cases to the appointing authority stating the evidence on which he relies and explaining how the mistake occurred. The application shall be forwarded to the Commissioner of Revenue Administration for report after investigation by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector and on receipt of the report, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or the appointing authority, as the case may be, shall decide whether the alteration of date of birth may be permitted or the application may be rejected. Provided that in case of a candidate who was born outside the State of Tamil Nadu the investigation through the Commissioner of Revenue Administration shall be dispensed with and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or the appointing authority, as the case may be, shall examine and scrutinise the records that may be produced by the candidate and shall decide whether the alteration of date of birth may be permitted or the application may be rejected. (b) After a person has entered service, an application to alter the date of his birth as entered in the official records shall be entertained only if such an application is made within five years of such entry into service. Such an application shall be made to the authority competent to make an appointment to the post held by the applicant at the time of his application and shall be disposed of in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-rule (a). Such an application shall be made to the authority competent to make an appointment to the post held by the applicant at the time of his application and shall be disposed of in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-rule (a). (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. Proviso - (Omitted in G.O.Ms.No.388, P & AR (Per.S), dated 27.12.95, w.e.f. 3.8.94) (d) In considering the question of permitting an alteration on the date of birth as entered into the official records even when such entry is proved to have been made due to a bonafide mistake, the Government or the appointing authority shall take into consideration the circumstance whether the applicant would normally be eligible for appointment to the post at the time into service had his age been correctly stated and what would have been its effect on his service and the service conditions of other officers in the service and may permit the alteration subject to such condition as they or it may deem fit to impose: Provided that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission shall be consulted in the case of an applicant who has been initially recruited through the Tamil Nadu Pubic Service Commission, if it is proposed to accept his request for alteration of date of birth. (3) The procedure laid down in sub-rule (a) shall be followed in all cases where alteration of date of birth is proposed suo motu by the Head of Office on the basis of medical opinion, in the absence of any other authoritative records. Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-rule "authoritative records" are the secondary school leaving certificate or University, College, or School records or Discharge Certificate of Army. (f) The decision of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the appointing authority or the Government, as the case may be, shall be final." Merely because the above provision is available, it does not mean that it will give licence to the candidates to change their date of birth at their own sweet Will to suit their convenience. (f) The decision of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the appointing authority or the Government, as the case may be, shall be final." Merely because the above provision is available, it does not mean that it will give licence to the candidates to change their date of birth at their own sweet Will to suit their convenience. Even as per Article 60 of the Limitation Act 1963, only three years time from the date of attainment of majority of the ward, is prescribed for the ward to challenge the transfer of minor's property by the guardian during Ward's minority as per Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956. Article 60 of the Limitation Act 1963 reads as follows: PART-IV-SUITS RELATING TO DECREE AND INSTRUMENTS Description of suit Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run 60.) To set aside a transfer of property made by the guardian of a ward-- (a) by the ward who has attained majority; (b) by the ward's legal representative -- (i) when the ward dies within three years from the date of attaining majority; (ii) when the ward dies before attaining majority. Three years Three years Three years Three years When the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him. When the ward attains majority When the ward attains majority When the ward dies When such is the position, the concerned person, is required to change the wrong date of birth within three years of attaining majority. 13. It is not as if immediately after attaining majority, government appointments are given and there is no time available for those government servants who want to correct their wrong date of birth after joining service. It is not joining of government service or five years therein which gives cause of action for alteration of wrong date of birth. If there is any discrepancy or mistake in the date of birth, three years from the date of attaining majority alone can be limitation to alter the date of birth. Appropriate government may consider incorporation of a provision similar to Article 60(a) of the limitation for alteration of date of birth within 3 years of attaining majority, considering the public interest. 14. Appropriate government may consider incorporation of a provision similar to Article 60(a) of the limitation for alteration of date of birth within 3 years of attaining majority, considering the public interest. 14. The concerned person is required to make endeavour to verify the correctness of his date of birth as recorded in the school/academic records in time by getting birth extract register. If wrong date of birth is not altered within time, it is the default of the concerned individual. The said wrong entry of date of birth cannot be allowed to be corrected after entering into service, as it would affect others. To put it in other words, the default of an individual cannot cause loss or injustice to innocent juniors and unknown unemployed youth. As long as the alteration of date of birth does not affect others, there should not be any problem to alter the same and it remains as individual right. After entry into service, the alteration of date of birth affects others like juniors. Therefore, the alteration cannot be considered as individual right, as it endangers rights of others. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary and Commissioner Home Department and others vs. R.Kirubakaran reported in 1994 supp (1) SCC 155 explained about the chain of reaction and its consequences about the alteration of date of birth of serving government servants. Paragraph 7 is usefully extracted as follows: "7.) An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by 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 cencerned 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 their promotions for ever. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. Cases are not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. According to us, this is an important 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, the court or the tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, 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 he period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be filed within the time, which can be held to be reasonable. 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 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 for 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 merely caused injustice to his immediate junior." (Emphasis supplied) 16. In Union of India vs. C.Ramaswamy, reported in 1997 (4) SCC 647 the Apex Court dealt with Rule 16-A of All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules 1958 and declared the relevancy of age of a candidate to assess the suitability for appointment in service. Paras 25 and 26 of the judgment read as follows: "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. 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 taken into 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. To that extent the decision in Manak Chand case1 does not lay down the correct law." For any appointment, the suitability of the candidate is materially decided based on the qualification and age, which is based on date of birth. Only those who attained majority and possessed necessary qualification, the appointments are made. While making the appointments, the date of superannuation is also determined. Having declared a particular date of birth, which is reflected in the school records and obtained advantage of appointment based on that, it is not open to the government servant to alter the so declared date of birth. Therefore, any attempt by the government servant to change the date of birth based on any ground should be prevented and otherwise it would be against the public policy and public interest. Therefore the rules empowering the authority to change the date of birth after entering into service are required to reviewed and deleted in the interest of public. 17. Now a days, it is very difficult to get government employment. In such circumstances, alteration of date of birth of the government servant is permitted and service of government servent is extended, it will affect the eligible juniors who are waiting for years together for promotion and it would create unemployment problem to the youth. It is common knowledge that the unemployment is severe in our country.According to the employment exchange statistics 2010 published by Director General of Employment,Government of India 3,81,52,000 are reported to be the total job seekers on the live register of employment exchange in our country at the end of 2009. It is common knowledge that the unemployment is severe in our country.According to the employment exchange statistics 2010 published by Director General of Employment,Government of India 3,81,52,000 are reported to be the total job seekers on the live register of employment exchange in our country at the end of 2009. The total number of vacancies notified during the year 2009 (From January to December) was of 4.20 lakhs. About 2.62 lakhs job seekers were placed during the year 2009. On an average around 57 lakhs job seekers get registered in the employment exchange per year during the last 10 years. (Down loaded from Web site ) 18. As per the details provided by the Directorate of Employment Exchange and Training, Tamilnadu the number of job seekers waiting in the rolls of employment exchange in Tamil Nadu as on 30.6.2011 is 71,84,46/-. When such is the position, there is no justification for any of the government servant to get extension or to stick on to their position by altering the date of birth during their tenure and it would go against the public interest and would prejudice the interests of crores of job seekers, who are on the rolls of employment exchange expecting government jobs. 19. It is well settled law that private interest is subservient to public interest. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2004 (4)SCC 311 held that Public Interest is always been considered to be above the private interest and that the interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected and it cannot have potential of taking over the public interest. Considering the public importance and the interest of crores of job seekers, and the availability of less government jobs, it would be appropriate for the government not to allow the government servant to alter their date of birth at the time of entering into service or after entering into service, even if there is mistake or wrong entry of date of birth resulting in infringement of his rights. His right to correct his date of birth and the candidates should not be allowed to change/alter at any point of time during the service as it would cause irreparable loss, injustice to those who are in the ladder as spelt out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary & Commissioner Home Department vs. R.Kirubakaran reported in 1994 Supp(1) SCC 155, in Burn Standard Co. Ltd. vs. Dina Bandhu Majundar reported in 1995 (4) SCC 172 . 20. In the light of the above, 1) The State Government is required to suitably amend the Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules by deleting the same. In the same line, other service rules including Tamilnadu State Judicial Service Rules and Regulations of the Government undertakings, Corporations, Government controlled Banks are required to be amended; Similarly Union Government is also required to suitably amend the concerned service rules which enable the servants to change the date of birth after entering into service; 2) It is suggested that the appropriate government may consider incorporation of a provision similar to Article 60(a) of the Limitation Act 1963; fixing three years time limit for an individual after attaining majority to correct the wrong date of birth and, 3) It is appropriate for the State Government as well as Central Government, Corporation, undertakings etc. to make it clear in the recruitment notification itself that the date of birth reflected in academic certificates alone will be considered for the purpose of entering into service and it will not be allowed to alter subsequently till superannuation, even if there is a material mistake in the recorded date of birth. Then only it would give a full stop to the attempts being made by the government servants to change their date of births during the service and it would go a long way in reducing the unemployment problem in our country. The copy of this order is directed to be sent to Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, New Delhi, Chief Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu. 21. With the above recommendations this writ petition is dismissed.