JUDGMENT CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 5.4.2007 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No.1830 of 2005 whereunder a direction was given to refer the respondent herein to the Medical Board of Osmania General Hospital for determination of his age. It was also directed that on such determination, the petitioners shall take appropriate action in relation to the service benefits of the respondent. 2. The case of respondent/employee is that he was appointed as a contingent employee on 26.6.1972 and subsequently he was appointed as an Attender with effect from 29.10.1981 on regular basis. He pleaded that in the Service Register, though his actual date of birth is 26.1.1954, his date of birth was shown as 26.1.1945 and he was surprised to be informed that he would be retired on 30.1.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation. He stated that in the A.P. Government Group Life Insurance Policy No.244352-A also his date of birth was recorded as 26.1.1954. 3. The respondent made an application through the Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry, Shadnagar vide his letter dated 20.10.2004 seeking correction of date of birth as 26.1.1954 in the Service Register by enclosing the certificate issued by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Boorgula Village showing his date of birth as 26.1.1954 and in fact the Director, Animal Husbandry Department had forwarded the documents to the Government. He alleged that the Government rejected his request by a Memo NoA09/AH-II(2)/05 dated 4.3.2005 stating that the same cannot be considered on the ground that he was already relieved from service, on attaining the age of superannuation. Before the Tribunal a copy of the policy and a certificate dated 26.9.1983 purported to have been issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Boorgula Village and a confirmation letter alleged to have been issued by the Primary School, Panchayat Samithi, Chintlaguda showing the petitioner having studied between the period 1960-63 were filed. 4. The O.A. was opposed by the petitioner by filing a counter-affidavit. It was pleaded that the relief claimed in the O.A. does not fit into the A.P. Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 (for short, "the Rules"). 4. The O.A. was opposed by the petitioner by filing a counter-affidavit. It was pleaded that the relief claimed in the O.A. does not fit into the A.P. Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 (for short, "the Rules"). The Tribunal allowed the O.A. and directed the petitioner to refer the respondent to Medical Board of Osmania General Hospital for determination of the age of the respondent and on such determination of the age of the respondent by the Medical Board, they shall take action accordingly. 5. Sri Sumanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Services-I submits that the direction of the Tribunal is wholly unsustainable and in disregard of the statutory rules governing the field. 6. Sri Kusuri Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that the dates of births that was entered in the Service Record, does not reflect the correct state of affairs. He contends that the Tribunal has adopted a pragmatic approach, to get to the reality; 7. The matter relating to the correction of dates of births of the employees of the Government, is covered by the rules. Rule 2(5) thereof, becomes relevant, in this regard. It reads: Rule 2(5): The date of birth as determined on the basis of the school records of any proof produced at the time of entering into service and entered in the service record shall be final and no subsequent variation of date of birth in the school records for any reason, shall be relevant for the purpose of service and on that basis the date of birth entered in the service records shall not be altered except in the case of bona fide clerical error, under the orders of the Government. What the respondent pleaded is not the correction of any clerical error. The issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in the case of Government of A.P. v. M. Hayagreev Sarma, (1990) 2 SCC 682 . 8. The statutory rules prohibit the reopening of the date of birth in the Service Register except in circumstances mentioned in Rule 2(5) of the Rules. Rule 5 of the Rules permits alteration of date of birth based on alteration of date of birth in school records on account of bona fide clerical error under the orders of the Government. 9. The statutory rules prohibit the reopening of the date of birth in the Service Register except in circumstances mentioned in Rule 2(5) of the Rules. Rule 5 of the Rules permits alteration of date of birth based on alteration of date of birth in school records on account of bona fide clerical error under the orders of the Government. 9. In the case on hand, it is not the contention of the respondent that there was any change in the date of birth in the school records due to any clerical error and the said clerical error has been corrected on the orders of any competent authority. As stated supra except in the cases falling under Rule 2(5) of the Rules, the alteration of date of birth in the Service Register is totally prohibited and for all purposes the date of birth as entered in the Service Register at the time of entering into the service is final and binding on the employee for all purposes. 10. This apart, an employee can be sent for medical examination for determination of age, if only the relevant rules provide for it. Such procedure is followed in respect of unskilled industrial workers, under the relevant standing orders. It is totally unknown in Government services. In that view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal directing the Government to refer the respondent to the Medical Board of Osmania General Hospital for determination of the age of the respondent is totally out-side the scope of the statutory, rules governing the field. At any rate, the employee retired from service, by the time he filed the O.A. In the circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is wholly unsustainable and thereby the same is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 5.4.2007 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No.1830 of 2005. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand disposed of.