Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed, as a Forest Guard, in the Forest Department, on 29.11.1979. At the time of his joining in service, the date of birth of the petitioner had been entered in the service records, as 1.11.1949, as per the school records, even though his actual date of birth is 18.4.1952. As the petitioner had learnt that his parents had got married in the year, 1951, he had made further enquiries, with regard to his actual date of birth. On such enquiry being made, the petitioner had found out that his actual date of birth is 18.4.1952 and not 1.11.1949, as entered in the school records. Therefore, he had submitted a representation, for the alteration of his date of birth, on 24.11.1984, as per Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules, within five years from the date of his joining in service. 3. It has been further stated that no orders had been passed on the representation submitted by the petitioner, even though the petitioner had submitted all the necessary records, to the second respondent, to substantiate his claims. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.29135 of 2004, for the alteration of his date of birth. This Court, by its order, dated 26.6.2007, made in W.P.No.29135 of 2004, had directed the District Forest Officer, Vellore Division, Vellore, the first respondent therein, to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, taking note of the fact that the petitioner was to retire from service, on his attaining the age of superannuation, in the month of October, 2007. However, the authorities concerned had issued the proceedings, dated 27.9.2007, forwarding the papers, relating to the request of the petitioner, to the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, for an enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar, had conducted an elaborate enquiry and had submitted a report, in his proceedings, dated 25.10.2007. Even though the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar, was in favour of the petitioner, the Joint Commissioner of Revenue Administration, had suomotu, given an opinion, contrary to the findings in the said report. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar, had conducted an elaborate enquiry and had submitted a report, in his proceedings, dated 25.10.2007. Even though the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheyyar, was in favour of the petitioner, the Joint Commissioner of Revenue Administration, had suomotu, given an opinion, contrary to the findings in the said report. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred another writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.29399 of 2008. 4. It has been further stated that this Court, by an order, dated 5.10.2009, had directed the second respondent therein to pass orders, with regard to the claims made by the petitioner, on merits. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the second respondent had passed an order, on 11.11.2009, rejecting the request of the petitioner for altering his date of birth, as 18.4.1952. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had been appointed in service, as a Forest Guard, in the Forest Department, on 29.11.1979. While so, he had submitted an application for altering his date of birth, on 24.11.1984, within five years from the date of his joining in service, as per Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further submitted that, even though the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, who had conducted a detailed enquiry, was in favour of the petitioner, the Joint Commissioner of Revenue Administration, had given a legal opinion, contrary to the findings in the said report. Thereafter, the second respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner, without proper application of mind and without giving proper reasons for such rejection. Therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court, by filing the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent denying the claims made by the petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 8. It has been stated that the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 11.11.2009, is correct. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent denying the claims made by the petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 8. It has been stated that the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 11.11.2009, is correct. It has been pointed out that the second respondent, while passing the impugned proceedings, had taken into consideration all the relevant factors, including the documents filed by the petitioner in support of his claims. However, the request made by the petitioner for the alteration of his date of birth entered in the school records and in the service records, as 18.4.1952, had been rejected, as the petitioner had not furnished sufficient evidence in support of his claim. The second respondent, while passing the impugned proceedings, had given proper reasons for rejecting the claims made by the petitioner. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the claims made by the petitioner had not been substantiated with sufficient evidence. 10. The second respondent has passed the impugned proceedings rejecting the request made by the petitioner, for the alteration of his date of birth, by giving proper reasons. Even though the petitioner might have submitted his application for the alteration of his date of birth, on 24.11.1984, within five years from the date of his entering into service, as per Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules, he had failed to submit the relevant records to substantiate his claims, within the prescribed period. In fact, he had represented his application, along with certain records obtained from the office of the Sub Registrar, Kannamangalam, only after the period of seven years from the date of his joining in service. Even otherwise, the petitioner had not been in a position to show, by sufficient evidence, that he was born on 18.4.1952 and not on 1.11.1949, as entered in the school records and in the service registrar. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that he was born, on 18.4.1952, could not be established, by the petitioner, by sufficient evidence. 11. Even otherwise, the petitioner had not been in a position to show, by sufficient evidence, that he was born on 18.4.1952 and not on 1.11.1949, as entered in the school records and in the service registrar. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that he was born, on 18.4.1952, could not be established, by the petitioner, by sufficient evidence. 11. Further, from the records available, it is noted that the petitioner could not have completed the age of 15 years of age, which is one of the requirements for writing the S.S.L.C. examinations, if his correct date of birth is to be taken, as 18.4.1952. It is also noted that there were no ‘double promotions’, during his schooling, as claimed by him. 12. In such circumstances, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 11.11.2009. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No cost. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.