Judgment :- 1. In the order dated 06.01.2012, this Court has directed that the respondent to be present in Court and accordingly, today, the respondent is present in Court. 2. This Court, while disposing W.P.No.8115 of 2011 on 27.4.2011 has taken note of the fact that the petitioner has joined the medical services under the Deputy Director of Health Service, Cuddalore on 04.02.2002 and he has made an application for alteration of his date of birth as 09.09.1953 instead of 22.05.193 and the said application was stated to have been filed on 09.08.2003, which is well within the five years period as contempleted under Rule 49 of the General Rules coming under Part II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, directed the 5th respondent therein/respondent herein, to consider the case of the petitioner regarding alteration of his date of birth and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order . 3. Now, the petitioner has filed this contempt application on the ground that the Director of Medical Education, has passed an order on 24.05.2011 that the representation of the petitioner dated 09.08.2003 was not received and therefore, the application is deemed to have not been filed within the time limit of five years as per Rule 49 of the General Rules coming under Part II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. However, on a perusal of the revenue records, this Court is able to appreciate that the revenue has confirmed the receipt of such application on 09.08.2003. However, now it is sought to be explained that the said application was received by one Senior Civil Surgeon Dr.M.Kulothungan (then Block Medical Officer) who was working in Kammapuram and having received the said application, after making an endorsement, at the request of the petitioner, he has handed over the same him, so as to enable him to handover the same to the appropriate authority, viz., the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai. There is absolutely nothing on record to substantiate the same. 4. There is absolutely nothing on record to substantiate the same. 4. On a reference to the communication of the Prl.Secretary/Commissioner of Revenue Administration, dated 27.05.2011, which was produced before this Court at the time of filing of the contempt petition, it seems that the application of the petitioner for alteration of his date of birth was received within five years and the Prl.Secretary has also given certain reasons, viz., that the application has not been filed in a prescribed format and necessary certificates have not been enclosed, for rejecting the same. In such view of the matter, it is to be presumed that there has been some administrative difficulty for the respondent in receiving the said representation. 5. Moreover, the respondent, who is present in the Court also submits that as a Director of Medical Education, she is not concerned about the issue at all and it has to be decided only by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine. In such view of the matter, I am of the view that even though there is some discrepancy in receipt of application of the petitioner with the revenue records, it clearly shows that the application has been received within five years period. Therefore, there is nothing to proceed in this contempt application, accordingly, the same is closed. However, in the interest of justice, the petitioner is permitted to file necessary application in the prescribed format to the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and on receipt of the same, the said authority, viz., Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai, shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously. The contempt petition is closed and the respondent is hereby discharged from the contempt proceedings. No costs.