Judgment :- Manjula Chellur, CJ. 1. Heard learned Government Pleader as well as learned counsel for respondent. 2. Respondent herein was the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge who sought correction of his date of birth in the service record. It is not in dispute that the respondent herein joined in the department of Excise as Inspector and he was promoted as Commissioner of Excise at the relevant point of time. At the time of joining service, the date of birth given was 30/11/1956 though his actual date of birth was 25/12/1956. In this regard, in 1991 he submitted an application at Ext.P5 seeking correction of his date of birth in the service record on 01/12/1992. As a matter of fact, on 20/11/1991 as per Ext.P1, he submitted an application seeking correction of his date of birth in the SSLC. book by placing reliance on his baptism certificate along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the said application. It is not in dispute that delay in filing the application for correction of date of birth in the SSLC book was condoned by the Government as per Ext.P2 dated 20/01/1992. 3. At the time of joining service, the rule providing correction of date of birth in service record was to the effect that two years before the retirement, a particular government servant could ask for change of date of birth in the service record. However, this Rule came to be amended and by order at Ext.P4 dated 30/12/1991, the entire procedure for correction of date of birth in service book of Government employees came to be modified. By virtue of Ext.P4, correction of date of birth could be sought by a Government employee within a period of five years from the date of entry into service. A concession was also given to such employees who requires correction of date of birth if period of five years is already completed from the date of entry into service, that is one year from the date of Government order Ext.P4 such correction could be asked provided they apply prior to two years preceding retirement. 4. A concession was also given to such employees who requires correction of date of birth if period of five years is already completed from the date of entry into service, that is one year from the date of Government order Ext.P4 such correction could be asked provided they apply prior to two years preceding retirement. 4. In the present case, apparently when application as per Ext.P5 dated 01/12/1992 for correction of date of birth in the service book came to be submitted, attested copy of the corrected S.S.L.C book was not annexed as there was no correction of date of birth so far as S.S.L.C book is concerned. According to writ petitioner, though he submitted an application on 20/11/1991 and the Government condoned the delay in filing the application, the Commissioner for Government Examinations took his own sweet time in disposing of the said application on 30/06/1997 for no fault of the writ petitioner. According to writ petitioner, after obtaining correction in the SSLC book when he moved for correction of date of birth in the service records, department rejected the same. However, on realising that similarly placed persons got a favourable order from the Government, he approached this Court on earlier occasion in W.P.C.No.19264/2004 challenging Exts.P8 and P9 placing reliance on Exts.P11 and P12. However, this Court directed the Government to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of Exts.P11 and P12 orders passed by the Government pertaining to other Government employees. Unfortunately, again there was rejection of his application by order at Ext.P14 on the ground that the application has been filed without complying with the requirements of Ext.P4 Government Order as the application did not accompany corrected SSLC book, the relevant document for such correction. 5. Aggrieved by this, the writ petitioner approached the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, after referring to all aspects of the matter including strenuous contention raised by the Government that Ext.P4 direction has to be complied in strict adherence to the terms and conditions referred to at Ext.P4, the learned Single Judge proceeded to allow the writ petition only on the ground that Commissioner for Government Examinations took nearly six years to pass an order correcting date of birth in the SSLC book and so far as this appeal is concerned, writ petitioner did not contribute or he was not responsible for such delay. The learned Judge directed the Government to pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment after hearing the writ petitioner as well. 6. Aggrieved by this judgment, the Government is in appeal before us. According to learned Government Pleader, writ petitioner cannot place reliance on Exts.P11 and P12 orders of the Government pertaining to other Government employees and insist upon irregularity or illegality committed by the Government at Exts.P11 and P12 in perpetuating the mistake. He places reliance on judgment reported in Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [(1996) 2 SCC 459]. So far as facts are concerned, according to learned Government Pleader, though an application Ext.P5 came to be made on 01/12/1992 before expiry of one year from the date of notification at Ext.P4 order dated 30/12/1991, the same was not supported by any corrected document regarding date of birth of the writ petitioner. Therefore there is no compliance of directions issued at Ext.P4. 7. According to learned Government Pleader, the very purpose why Government modified the earlier procedure for correction of date of birth in the service book was on account of several deficits found in the said procedure. Therefore, there has to be strict compliance of directions at Ext.P4. He supports his contention by placing reliance on reported decision in Mariamma v. State of Kerala [1997(2) KLT 115]. 8. As against this, learned counsel for writ petitioner/respondent contends that procedure at Ext.P4 contemplates submitting an application within a period of one year if the period of five years is crossed from the date of entry into service. Therefore, the application was submitted within time and if Commissioner for Government Examinations did not dispose of the application at Ext.P1 on time it was not a mistake of the writ petitioner and he cannot be denied his right for the fault of someone else. He also contends that once an application is submitted within time as contemplated at Ext.P4, nothing else need to be done by the petitioner except supporting the application by supplying necessary documents and submission of documents need not be along with the application for correction of date of birth as long as it is made within one year. 9. We have gone through judgment of the learned Single Judge and also Ext.P4 order dated 30/12/1991. 9. We have gone through judgment of the learned Single Judge and also Ext.P4 order dated 30/12/1991. The relevant clauses are 3, 4 and 5 which reads as under: "3. Still an opportunity can be granted during the initial periods of one's service to make corrections in bona fide cases. Government are pleased to adopt the system followed by Government of India in this matter. They accordingly order in the modification of the existing orders that applications for correction of date of birth if any needed in the case of a Government employee shall hereafter be made within 5 years of one's entry in service. In the case of those who have already crossed this limit, one year time from the date of this order shall be allowed, provided they apply beyond the two year preceding retirement, reckoned with references to the date of birth is recorded in the service book. The application for correction of date of birth in service book shall be admitted to Government in the administrative department concerned, through proper channel. 4. The conditions that such applications, in the case those who have attended a school, shall be supported by attested copies of S.S.L.C./SSC book or extract of school records is corrected and that more correction of date of birth in the school records does not entitled the employee for consequential correction of date of birth in service book will remain unchanged. Each case will be considered by Government on merits and orders passed. 5. Applications for condonation of delay and for entertainment of applications in relaxation of the condition regarding time limit shall be summarily rejected." 10. So far as the circumstance in which modification of procedure for correcting date of birth, this Court in Mariamma (Supra) had gone in depth why such occasion arose and what is the purpose of such modification. Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 are relevant which reads as under: "8. Government have issued executive order dated 30/12/1991 so as to curb the tendency of filing applications by the Government employees to get the date of birth corrected when they are about to retire. Procedure for submitting applications is also stated in the said Government Order. Reason for issuing such an order, and the necessity of complying with the procedure laid down in the said order strictly, are discernible from the order itself. Procedure for submitting applications is also stated in the said Government Order. Reason for issuing such an order, and the necessity of complying with the procedure laid down in the said order strictly, are discernible from the order itself. The order was necessitated due to the growing tendency of Government employees to get date of birth corrected on the eve of their retirement. It is pertinent to note the need for correction should not arise at all, once one's date of birth is entered in the service book because it is the date furnished by him for selection to the post and it is again based on the proof furnished by the employee himself. One realises his date of birth in his life time on the number of occasions, such as when he gets his S.S.L.C book or secures extract from School Admission Register. He is also aware of his date of birth in modern times, when he applies for driving licence, or when he applies for passport, and on various occasions. Therefore, it cannot be said that a person is unaware of his date of birth on all those occasions. One is also aware of his date of birth, when he applies for higher studies and also when he applies for various posts. In several cases, the date of birth in the SSLC book or college records is very relevant for applying for various jobs. Certain notifications restrict the age limit also. In certain cases, employees enter service on the basis of date of birth entered in the SSLC book. In certain cases employees do not apply for the post because of age restriction. For instance, if the applications are invited from persons between the age group of 18 and 25, and if, on the basis of date of birth entered in the SSLC book, he is over-aged he cannot apply, and if he is underaged also, he cannot apply. Therefore, date of birth is very crucial even in the matter of appointment. Therefore, having secured the appointment on the basis of date of birth entered in the school records, it is not just and fair to have it corrected later on for getting the service extended. Therefore, date of birth is very crucial even in the matter of appointment. Therefore, having secured the appointment on the basis of date of birth entered in the school records, it is not just and fair to have it corrected later on for getting the service extended. Therefore, there may be cases where, if the service book is ultimately corrected on the basis of the corrected date of birth in the SSLC book, the employee could not have even applied for the post due to age restriction. It shows the importance of the date of birth entered in the admission register as well as in the SSLC book, which obviously determines the future of a person at the time of applying for a job. 9. In many cases persons who enter service or are continuing in service taking note of their future prospects. Therefore age of retirement of seniors will be closely watched by juniors to get promotion. Cases also not unknown when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. Therefore, if a senior gets his date of birth corrected at the fag end of his career, and continues in service, that will affect the promotion chances of his juniors as well. This aspect was considered by the Supreme Court in Secy. & Commr. V. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp.(1) SCC 155. 10. Looking at the above mentioned principles, needless to say that Government order has to be strictly followed. As per the Government order dated 30/12/1991, an application submitted by the employee shall be supported by attested copies of SSLC/SSC book or extract of school record as corrected and that mere correction of date of birth in the school record does not entitle the employee for consequential correction of date of birth in service book. Therefore, the mere fact that petitioner submitted an application within one year from the date of the Government order would not suffice. Petitioner has to submit the application with all relevant documents which are necessary to establish his case. Those evidence which the petitioner produces should amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Petitioner cannot put in some application or representation before the Government, and then go on collecting evidence. Petitioner has to submit the application with all relevant documents which are necessary to establish his case. Those evidence which the petitioner produces should amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Petitioner cannot put in some application or representation before the Government, and then go on collecting evidence. If he is relying on the date of birth as corrected in the SSLC book, he has to produce the same along with the application at least within one year from the date of the Government order. In other words, Government have given one year time to the employees to collect evidence and prove their correct date of birth. It is also for the petitioner to produce whatever documents necessary for carrying out the correction of date of birth in the service records, within the stipulated time. Contention of counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has applied for correction of date of birth before the Commissioner for Government Examinations in time and the delay had occurred at the office of the Commissioner for Government Examinations, I am of opinion, cannot be countenanced. It is the responsibility of the employee to see that all documents are collected and produced along with the application within one year from the date of the Government order. Therefore, the contention of counsel for the petitioner that since the delay had occurred in the office of the Commissioner for Government Examinations, her application should have been considered by the Government cannot be accepted." 11. While emphasizing the purpose for which Ext.P4 came into force this Court clearly held that the seriousness and the purpose with which Ext.P4 came to be issued is in the light of several facts referred to above and therefore the modification of the procedure would become purposeful only if there is strict adherence to the procedure contemplated at Ext.P4. Therefore, it is needless to say that there has to be strict compliance of procedure contemplated at Ext.P4 whenever correction of date of birth in service book is sought. Submitting necessary documents upon which reliance is placed for correction of date of birth is one of the important aspect an applicant has to follow at the time of submitting an application. In view of already a particular date of birth is indicated at the time of entry into service, there has to necessarily be a document why such correction is sought for. In view of already a particular date of birth is indicated at the time of entry into service, there has to necessarily be a document why such correction is sought for. It could be S.S.L.C book or date of birth certificate issued by a Panchayath or Municipality or any other similar document. In that view of the matter, it need not be SSLC book in every case as it could be a different document upon which reliance could be placed by the applicant. 12. In the present case, apparently the applicant though filed the application on 01/12/1992, did not supply necessary documents where correction of date of birth is indicated. Admittedly, the document he relies upon is SSLC book. Though he submitted application as early as on 20/11/1991, Commissioner for Government Examinations disposed of the application only in 1997. Therefore, it was factually impossible for the applicant to supply corrected SSLC book while submitting application at Ext.P5. So far as disposal of the application by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, we note that even after submitting such application, he had almost 11 months before he applied for correction of date of birth as per Ext.P5. As on 01/12/1992, he had not obtained the corrected SSLC book; but nothing prevented the writ petitioner to approach this Court in 11 months time seeking a direction against the concerned Commissioner for disposal of his application. Having not done so and having not complied with the procedure contemplated at Ext.P4, is it open to the writ petitioner to demand similar treatment to him placing reliance on Exts.P11 and P12. In the case of Gursharan Singh (Supra), paragraph 9 is relevant which reads as under: 9. Apart from that even if it is assumed that concession was shown to such stall-holders by the NDMC the appellants cannot make grievance in respect of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. Having agreed to the terms of allotment they cannot legitimately claim that they should also be treated in the same manner. There appears to be some confusion in respect of the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before law to all citizens. This guarantee of equality before law is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. There appears to be some confusion in respect of the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before law to all citizens. This guarantee of equality before law is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. To put it in other words, if an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court or of this Court, that the same irregularity or illegality be committed by the State or an authority which can be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, so far such petitioners are concerned, on the reasoning that they have been denied the benefits which have been extended to others although in an irregular or illegal manner. Such petitioners can question the validity of orders which are said to have been passed in favour of persons who were not entitled to the same, but they cannot claim orders which are not sanctioned by law in their favour on principle of equality before law. Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination. None of the 98 stall holders was impleaded a party to the writ petitions. The appellants questioned the validity of the allotment of 98 stall holders was impleaded a party to the writ petitions. The appellants questioned the validity of the allotment of 98 shops on concessional rates, without trade zoning restrictions in favour of the stall-holders of Panchkuian Road, but they were primarily interested that same concessions in respect of licence fee and relaxation in trade zoning restrictions, be also extended to them. The appellants questioned the validity of the allotment of 98 shops on concessional rates, without trade zoning restrictions in favour of the stall-holders of Panchkuian Road, but they were primarily interested that same concessions in respect of licence fee and relaxation in trade zoning restrictions, be also extended to them. Any such claim on their behalf cannot be entertained on the basis of concept of equality before law as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. 13. Reading the above judgment, it is very clear that one cannot expect the authority to perpetuate the mistake for ever. If there was legal order or decision on earlier occasion. In the light of strict compliance of directions at Ext.P4, it was open to the appellant authority at clauses 4 and 5 of Ext.P4 if at all they had done so as per Exts.P11 and 12. On that account the writ petitioner cannot seek equal treatment of his application. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, though there was ample opportunity for the writ petitioner to get the date of birth in his SSLC book corrected before he approached the authorities with Ext.P5 he did not choose to do so. Therefore, in the absence of strict compliance of Clauses 4 and 5 of Ext.P4, we are of the opinion, no benefit would survive to him as directed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we are of the opinion, judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside by allowing the appeal.