Judgment 1. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The Petitioner submits that she was born on 02.02.1967 to her parents viz., Mr. Ramasamy Gounder and Mrs. Pappathi at her residence at Tholur Kattuvalavu, Pagalpatti Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District and her date of birth has been duly entered in the Birth Register by the Registrar of Births at Omalur, Salem District. At the time of admitting her into a Primary School, her illiterate grandmother gave her date birth as 01.02.1966 instead of 02.02.1967. She is having an elder blood brother's viz., Mr. R. Rajasekaran, whose date of birth was 29.09.1963 and the same has been duly entered in the Birth Register maintained by the Registrar of birth, on the file of Sub-Registrar's Office, Omalur, Salem District. All her Educational Certificates and services records bearing only the wrong date of birth i.e., 01.02.1966 due to the mistake committed by the grandmother at the time of her admission in to the Primary School. 2. The Petitioner additionally states that she was selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and she was appointed as such vide G.O.Ms.No.576 Home (Police-I) Department dated 15.05.1998 and she joined the duty on 01.06.1998 and her services in the said post was confirmed with effect from 23.07.2000, subsequently, she appeared for the recruitment of Group-I Services, conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and thereafter she was selected and appointed to the post of Deputy Collector (1998-1999 batch), vide G.O.Ms.No.16, Revenue Department dated 09.01.2002 and posted to work as Deputy Collector (Training), Namakkal District on 01.02.2002. She further stated that her services were regularised in the post of Deputy Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer and thereafter she was promoted as District Revenue Officer and joined the said post on 04.05.2007. Now, she is working as District Revenue Officer/Special Officer, Tirupathur, Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Kethandapatti, Vellore District without any blemish in her service whatsoever. 3. She further stated that her services were regularised in the post of Deputy Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer and thereafter she was promoted as District Revenue Officer and joined the said post on 04.05.2007. Now, she is working as District Revenue Officer/Special Officer, Tirupathur, Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Kethandapatti, Vellore District without any blemish in her service whatsoever. 3. She further stated that when she ventured into obtaining her birth certificate from the Sub Registrar's Office, Omalur, during the year 1999, she noticed that her correct date of birth was 02.02.1967 and therefore on 23.10.2000, she submitted an application for change of date of birth through the proper channel while she was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rasipuram, Namakkal District within a period of five years as per Rule of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Conduct Rules with the appointing Authority/Director General of Police, Chennai. Along with her application she has enclosed the statement of two witnesses, certifying her correct date of birth as 02.02.1967. In the meantime, her elder brother Mr. R. Rajasekaran, has also corrected his date of birth as 02.09.1963 instead of 27.05.1963 in his Educational Certificates, as per the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Omalur dated 30.08.2001 that too after comprehensive enquiry conducted by the Revenue Authorities in accordance with Rules 12 and 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Births and Deaths, Registration Rules, 1977. The Sub Registrar, Omalur vide his Proceedings dated 17.10.2002 has reported to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, about the entries made in the birth Registrar, Omalur, with regard to her date of birth and its genuineness and also submitted the extracts from the said birth Register for follow up action. 4. She additionally added that the 2nd Respondent's Office through the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai, in a letter dated 27.11.2002, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, to furnish the details of order of birth in her family. Again, by another letter dated 17.06.2004, the 2nd Respondent's Office has directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, to furnish further details of her family and educational particulars and the statement of her brother and she was also directed to furnish those details and she furnished the same to the 2nd Respondent/Commissioner for Revenue Administration, by her letter dated 09.08.2004. Again, by another letter dated 17.06.2004, the 2nd Respondent's Office has directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, to furnish further details of her family and educational particulars and the statement of her brother and she was also directed to furnish those details and she furnished the same to the 2nd Respondent/Commissioner for Revenue Administration, by her letter dated 09.08.2004. But to her shock and surprise, the 1st Respondent viz., the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, through its G.O.Ms.No.118 Revenue (Ser-II) Department dated 23.02.2005, rejected her request for correction in the date of birth (the correct date of birth is 02.02.1967 and wrong date of birth is 01.02.1966) for the following reasons: (i) If correct date of birth 02.02.1967 is taken into account, then the Petitioner would have got her admission in the 1st standard even without completing the age of five years and she appeared and completed the 10th standard even before completing the age of 15 years; Both representing elementary school rules and regulations. (ii) The Birth Certificate issued on 04.07.1994 by the Sub-Registrar, Omalur, does not contain the name of the child; but in the certificate issued on 16.09.1999 in the column for 'name of child' it was mentioned as 'Pappathi' and in the name of 'Parents column' it was mentioned as 'Ramasamy Gounder' and these mistakes were corrected by the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Omalur dated 09.06.2000 and fresh birth certificate was issued during the year 2001; (iii) There is a failure on the part of the concerned officials to submit the Order of Birth/Birth Register Extract from the appropriate offices; (iv) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, has reported that the pages of Birth Register are missing; (v) There is no proof to show the order of birth of the Petitioner to her parents; (vi) The statements obtained from witnesses are close relatives of the Petitioner and hence the same cannot be relied upon; (vii) The father of the Petitioner is a Doctor by profession and hence it cannot be accepted that he failed to notice the wrong date of birth entered in the SSLC book of the Petitioner while obtaining the same. 5. 5. The Petitioner had additionally ordered that since the 1st Respondent has failed to consider the relevant materials placed before him by the Petitioner as well as the Revenue Officials to prove her correct date of birth, she submitted a Review Petition dated 09.06.2005, with the 1st Respondent/Secretary to Government and the Review Petition was dismissed by his proceeding No.29600/Services 1(2)/2005-3, dated 23.02.2006, signed on 01.03.2006, which was received by her on 03.03.2006. During 1970, no proof of birth was claimed by the school authorities during the school admission of the child. The illiterate grandmother admitted the Petitioner into a Primary School and mistakenly given the date of birth as 01.02.1996 instead of 02.02.1967 and the same mistake had been recorded into the Petitioner's brother case as well and whose correct date of birth was 02.09.1963, but it was recorded as 27.05.1963 in his school records. It is relevant to submit here that the receipt of Birth Certificate on 16.09.1999 from the Sub-Registrar, Omalur, only she came to know that the name of the Petitioner's mother “Papathi” was written in the column i.e., name of the child. On an enquiry with the Sub-Registrar's Office , Omalur, she came to know that in the birth Register of the year 1967, maintained in the Sub-Registrar Office, Omalur, names of the mother were mistakenly written in the column pertaining to the name of the child, during the first few months by the concerned subordinate and this was evidenced by perusing the birth extracts in which, in the column allotted for child's name entries regarding mother was made, whereas in the name of the male child female name was entered. Subsequently, this mistake was rectified during later months in the birth register of the year, 1967. 6. Subsequently, she approached the Tahsildar, Omalur, who was the competent authority to make corrections if any found in the birth register (i.e., clerical mistakes). As per the Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969. Later after an elaborate enquiry and by following the due procedure, issued proceedings in R.C.No.4007/2000 (A4) dated 09.06.2000 to make necessary corrections in the Birth Register of 1967 pertaining to the name of the child to write 'Gajalakshmi' instead of “Pappathi” and it has been complied with. A letter stating the above facts had also been sent by the Sub-Registrar, omalur to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, dated 17.10.2002. A letter stating the above facts had also been sent by the Sub-Registrar, omalur to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, dated 17.10.2002. There is no dispute regarding the name of the Petitioner's mother as “Pappathi”. Hence, the reason stated by the 1st Respondent based on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, is incorrect and liable to be set aside. She further stated that she was not well and applied for Medical Leave from 19.06.2006 to 09.07.2006 and an operation was performed to her. Subsequently, at her request she was transferred from the post of Deputy Collector/Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector, Erode, to the post of Distillery Officer/Sakthi Sugars and Chemicals, Erode by the orders of the 1st Respondent vide G.O. (2D).No.380, dated 28.07.2006, hence she could not able to approach this Court at an earlier point of time for challenging the Impugned order of the 1st Respondent's proceedings and consequently direct the respondent to make necessary corrections in the service records of the Petitioner. Hence, this Writ Petition has been filed. 7. The Respondents have filed a counter statement and rebutted the writ petition. It is submitted that the Petitioner was originally selected and appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Home Department. Subsequently, she was selected and appointed as Deputy Collector and she was promoted as District Revenue Officer and now she is working as District Revenue Officer/Special Officer, Tirupattur Co-operative Sugar Mills, Kethandapatti, Vellore District. While, the Petitioner was working at Deputy Superintendent of Police, Namakkal, applied for alteration of date of birth on 26.09.2006, through proper channel. The same was received on 14.02.2001. According to the Rule 49(B) of the Tamil State and Subordinate Services Rules, her application was made within the allowable time limit of five years from the date of entry into service. The individual was inducted into Government service on 01.06.1998. The Respondents further submitted that after due consideration, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.118, Revenue (Ser-I (2) Department, dated 23.02.2005, have rejected the request of the Petitioner on the following grounds: (i) The Petitioner was admitted in first standard on 14.06.1971, if her date of birth is taken as 02.02.1967. She completes five years only on 01.02.1972. The Respondents further submitted that after due consideration, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.118, Revenue (Ser-I (2) Department, dated 23.02.2005, have rejected the request of the Petitioner on the following grounds: (i) The Petitioner was admitted in first standard on 14.06.1971, if her date of birth is taken as 02.02.1967. She completes five years only on 01.02.1972. Therefore, the Petitioner has got her admission in the first standard even without completing the age of five years; (ii) The Birth Certificate issued on 04.07.1994 by the Sub-Registrar, Omalur, does not contain the name of the child; but in the Certificate issued on 16.09.1999, in the column for 'name of child' it was mentioned as “ Pappathi” and in the name of 'parents column' it was mentioned as 'Ramasamy Gounder'. On verification of the enquiry with records reveals that the Father's name is Ramasamy Gounder and Mother's name is Pappathi. These mistakes were corrected by the proceedings of the Tahsildar Omalur No.D.Dis.4007/2000/A4, dated 09.06.2000 and fresh birth certificate was issued during the year of 2001; (iii) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, has reported that the pages of the Birth Register are missing and there is no proof to show the order of birth of the Petitioner to her parents; (iv) The statements obtained from witnesses are close relatives of the Petitioner and hence the same cannot be relied upon; (v) The father of the Petitioner is a Doctor by profession and hence it cannot be accepted that he failed to notice the wrong date of birth entered in the SSLC book of the Petitioner while obtaining the same. 8. The Respondents additionally submit that aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the first Respondent for reconsidering her request. The Government have rejected her appeal petition vide Government Letter No.29600/Ser-1(2)/05-3, dated 23.02.2006. Against this order, the Petitioner moved this Court at Madras and filed this Writ Petition praying for quashing the order of G.O.(Ms).No.118, Revenue (Ser.1(2) Department, dated 23.02.2005 and consequential Letter No.29600/Ser.1(2) Department, dated 23.02.2006 and consequently directed the Respondent to make necessary corrections in the Service Register of the Petitioner and enter her correct date of birth as 02.02.1967 instead of 01.02.1966. 9. 9. The Respondent further submitted that though the Sub-Registrar, Omalur, has reported to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, about the entries made in the Birth Registrar at Omalur, with regard to the date of birth of the Petitioner and its genuineness, her request was rejected by the Government in their G.O.Ms.No.118, Revenue (Services 1(2), Department, dated 23.02.2005. Hence, there is no force in the contention raised in the writ petition. It is submitted that order of date of birth is a vital documentary evidence to prove the claim of the Petitioner. This is absolutely required to make sure that the elder one does not grab the date of birth of her younger one taking advantage of the fact that the younger one is not in Government service or younger one is no more. But, it is not clear that whether any child was born to the parent of the applicant after the birth of the Petitioner. It is also submitted that the educational status of the family members are more reliable documents to prove the claim of the Petitioner. Therefore, it is the bounden duty of the Petitioner to produce the above documentary evidences for considering her request. Moreover, the request of the Petitioner was decided based on the merits of the case with reference to the documentary evidence submitted by her and not on the details of the information recorded in the Birth Register as contended by the Petitioner. Therefore, the material evidence produced by the Petitioner in support of her claim is not favourable to her. Therefore, in the absence of substantiate evidence her claim was rightly rejected for the reason stated in paragraph 5. 10. The Respondents additionally ordered that it is not correct to say that the first Respondent has failed to consider the relevant materials placed before them by the Petitioner as well as the Revenue officials to prove her claim. It is submitted that as per the provisions laid down under Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, the Commissioner of Revenue Administration is the statutory authority to cause investigation by an Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector in the claims made by a Government Servant for alteration of date of birth and send a fact finding report to the head of Department or Appointing Authority. The 2nd Respondent cannot take any decision on the request of the Petitioner, since he is not the appointing authority for the Petitioner. The appointing authority only can take decision on the request of the Petitioner. The Respondents further stated that the orders rejecting the request of the Petitioner was ordered only after careful consideration of the enquiry report, fact finding report of the second Respondent with other materials on records. Further, it is submitted that there is no provision under Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules to prefer revision petition and the decision of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the appointing authority of the Government as the case is final. Hence, the order dated 23.02.2006 of the first Respondent (i.e.) the Secretary to Government dismissing the revision petition of the Petitioner is within the ambit of their powers. 11. The Respondents further stated that the Petitioner had stated that during 1970 and no proof of birth was claimed by the school authorities during the admission in the school and her grandmother who was an illiterate mistakenly given the date of birth as 01.02.1966 instead of 02.02.1967 and the same mistake has been kept into the Petitioner's brother as well. The contention of the Writ Petitioner is not acceptable. The date of birth as entered in the school records at the time of her initial admission and other papers pertaining to her studies up to the secondary school leaving certificate and were duly considered and the records clearly show that, the date of birth of the Petitioner entered in the SSLC as 01.06.1966 was accepted by the father of the Petitioner in the declaration signed by him as proof of correctness. If he feels that the date of birth of his daughter is incorrect, he ought to have been taken necessary steps to alter her date of birth at that point of time, but he had not taken any steps to correct it. If he feels that the date of birth of his daughter is incorrect, he ought to have been taken necessary steps to alter her date of birth at that point of time, but he had not taken any steps to correct it. Further, it is true that the mistakes found in the Birth Register in the year 1967 maintained in the Sub-Registrar Office, Omalur, was rectified during later months and after an elaborate enquiry and by following the due procedure, issued proceedings in RC.4007/2000/A4, dated 09.06.2000 to make necessary corrections in the Birth Register of 1967 pertaining to the name of the child to write Gajalakshmi instead of Pappathi and it has been complied with. Though the Petitioner has submitted the above birth certificate after rectifying the defects noticed therein, it will not absolve the Petitioner from her onerous responsibilities to submit concrete evidence in support of her claim is not favourable to her. Therefore, in the absence of substantiate evidence her claim was rightly rejected. Therefore, the reasons stated by the first Respondent based on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, is absolutely correct and the decision of authority is well founded on the unassailable facts and materials on record, incorporating relevant facts and is therefore, legally sustainable and absolutely justifiable in the eyes of law. 12. The Respondents additionally stated that the Petitioner has not pointed out any single slip or lapse nor has highlighted any procedural error on the part of the Respondent which can be described as illegal, arbitrary. The impugned order dated 23.02.2005 of the first Respondent are passed after due consideration of all factors with reference to the outcome of the enquiry and available materials record. Therefore, the rejection orders passed by the first Respondent is sustainable under law. Further, there is no provision under Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules to furnish the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, enquiry report to the Petitioner before passing the impugned order. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, herein under the above said rules is final and ordered to be rejected by the first Respondent in G.O.Ms.No.118, Revenue [Ser-1(2)] Department, dated 23.02.2005. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner had submitted the birth certificate after rectifying the defects as noticed therein which has also been duly examined. The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, herein under the above said rules is final and ordered to be rejected by the first Respondent in G.O.Ms.No.118, Revenue [Ser-1(2)] Department, dated 23.02.2005. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner had submitted the birth certificate after rectifying the defects as noticed therein which has also been duly examined. But, these factors do not come to the rescue of the Writ Petitioner as the date of birth recorded in the SSLC book with the consent of her father is more reliable and has been taken as one of the main ground for rejection of her request. Another reason, there were no material proof for the order of her birth, to show that she was born as 2nd child to her parents and that her date of birth was only on 02.02.1967 as contended by the Petitioner. Moreover, the order issued in G.O.(Ms)No.887, Education Department, dated 06.06.1974, clearly indicates that the initial admission in the first standard should be only after completion of five years. But the Petitioner got admission in the first standard even without completing the age of five years and had availed the concession already. This fact is also one of the main ground of rejection of the request of the Petitioner among other grounds. All these events were discussed and then the 1st Respondent passed the impugned order. 13. The Respondents additionally stated that as per the provision laid down under Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, the 2nd Respondent is the authority to cause investigation by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector on the claims made by a Government Servant for alteration of date of birth and send a fact finding report to the Head of Department/appointing authority. The appointing authority can take their decision under Rule 49(F) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. This being the case, the 1st Respondent differ on the findings of the 2nd respondent and reject the claim of the petitioner after due examination of the records produced by the petitioner and based on the enquiry records. Therefore, the authorities have meticulously followed the procedure established by law before reaching the conclusion and the reasons for the conclusion, so arrived at have also been given in a detailed manner in the order of the 1st Respondent. Therefore, the authorities have meticulously followed the procedure established by law before reaching the conclusion and the reasons for the conclusion, so arrived at have also been given in a detailed manner in the order of the 1st Respondent. Further as per Rule 49(B) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, a person who has entered into Government Service, shall submit an application to alter his date of birth as entered in the official records which shall be entertained only if such an application is made within five years of such entry into service. Though the petitioner had applied for the alteration of date of birth within the time frame prescribed in the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, but the timely submission will not absolve the petitioner from her onerous responsibilities to submit correct evidence in support of her claim. The material evidence produced by the petitioner in support of her claim is not favourable to her. In the absence of substantiate evidence her claim was rightly rejected as devoid of merits. 14. The respondents further submits that her father had signed the declaration in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate agreeing with date of birth of her daughter as 01.02.1966 and thus, the declaration obtained from the close relatives which are interested parties of the applicant are invariably produced. Considering all these factors which was not favourable to the petitioner. The petitioner was admitted in the 1st standard before the completion of five years and enjoyed the benefits of early admission in the 1st standard on the willful and wanton alteration of date of birth, the Writ Petitioner has no case to contend that as wrong after joining the Government Service fast for the sake of continuing in service for a longer period. Any undue sympathy given to the petitioner will give a wrong signal to the others also. The reasons for the conclusion arrived by the authorities concerned all sufficient in scope for the rejection of the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner is trying to secure an unfair advantage of attaining her date of birth beyond her date of superannuation retirement. Hence, the respondent prays to dismiss the above Writ Petition. 15. The highly competent counsel Mr. The reasons for the conclusion arrived by the authorities concerned all sufficient in scope for the rejection of the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner is trying to secure an unfair advantage of attaining her date of birth beyond her date of superannuation retirement. Hence, the respondent prays to dismiss the above Writ Petition. 15. The highly competent counsel Mr. K. Premkumar submits that the writ petitioner has been selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and appointed on 15.05.1988, subsequently her service was confirmed with effect from 23.7.2000. The Writ Petitioner had received birth certificate from the Sub-Registrar's Office, Omalur in the year 1999 and she had noticed her correct date of birth is 02.02.1967 and in her school certificate her date of birth was 01.02.1966, hence, in order to rectify the correct date of birth she made an application before the respondents. At this juncture she has been selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the post of Deputy Collector, since she had participated in the competitive examination and has been passed on 09.01.2002. The 1st respondent had rejected the petitioner's claim to alter the date of birth in his proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.118 Revenue (Ser-II) Department, dated 23.02.2005. Aggrieved by the same the Writ Petitioner has filed review application on 09.06.2005 and the same was dismissed by the 1st respondent without conducting comprehensive enquiry, as such the impugned order is not maintainable, hence the above writ petition has been filed. 16. The very competent counsel further submits that the birth certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Omalur, it reveals that the petitioner's date of birth was 02.02.1967, the Sub-Registrar is the competent authority for maintaining the birth register which is a vital record of the Government. As such the petitioner's date of birth was 02.02.1967. The petitioner's grandmother an illiterate woman had orally informed to the Elementary School Headmaster that the date of birth of the petitioner was furnished in the Tamil vernacular version and taking into account the Headmaster of the School registered her date of birth as 01.02.1966 at the time of her admission in the 1st Standard. At that time the petitioner's caretaker was the grandmother since her parents were located far away due to her father being and practicing in the Health Department. As such, the date of birth had been recorded inadvertently. At that time the petitioner's caretaker was the grandmother since her parents were located far away due to her father being and practicing in the Health Department. As such, the date of birth had been recorded inadvertently. Now, the writ petitioner is claiming for her correct date of birth on the strength of birth certificate which has been issued by the recognised authority of the Government i.e. Sub-Registrar, Omalur. The petitioner's claim is not a hypothetical one but on the basis of authenticated document. The respondents ought to have considered the birth certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar based on the birth register which is not a created document or a self serving document, actually it is a public related document and as such it is note worthy. Now the respondents are maintaining wrong entry date of birth of the writ petitioner. This error can be rectified at any stage. As such the character and the facts of the mother will not be affected and also will not be prejudiced to the respondents. If the geniality will not be carried out then the writ petitioner will be put into irreparable loss. The writ petitioner is not only a professional but a brilliant lady which has been proved on two occasions, she has been selected for higher positions. Therefore, her impeccable service is absolutely in wanting for a further period as per the original date of birth and which is her birthright. 17. The 1st respondent had not discussed about the birth certificate and not assigned any reason regarding the original date of birth. It is a well known fact that even the well literate persons could commit mistakes, as such the Doctor inadvertently got involved in a complex situation and perforce handed over the admission of his child in a school with the grandmother to take a proper decision, though she committed mistakenly by using her vernacular language Tamil. Therefore, the writ petitioner is entitled for an alteration in her date of birth i.e. to 02.02.1967. The learned counsel supporting his case has cited a judgment reported in WP.No.25389 of 2004. The operative portion is as follows:- “8. Per contra, Mr. Therefore, the writ petitioner is entitled for an alteration in her date of birth i.e. to 02.02.1967. The learned counsel supporting his case has cited a judgment reported in WP.No.25389 of 2004. The operative portion is as follows:- “8. Per contra, Mr. E. Sampath kumar, learned Government Advocate would emphasise that if the petitioner was actually born on 26.06.1951, he would not have written the S.S.L.C. examination, because at the relevant point of time, he was only thirteen years and nine months old. On this reason only, the Tribunal had rejected the claim of the petitioner and therefore, no interference could be needed by this Court to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. 9. Since the petitioner referred the case of Gnanam for consideration, it is just and necessary for us to refer the said case for arriving to a just conclusion in this case. While deciding the case of Gnanam, the Tribunal has categorically concluded that the order of rejection should however contact the basis for the conclusion that the applicant's representation is not acceptable. In G.O.Ms.No.352, Revenue Department dated 27.08.1992, her representation for correction of date of birth was rejected, on the ground that with reference to the date of received 07.08.1984, she had appeared for S.S.L.C. examination in March 1952 and derived the benefits of doing so, at an early date and therefore, she cannot be allowed to get the benefit so for longer period of service. The above objection was raised by the authorities before Tribunal. However, the reason for rejecting the relief stated by the authorities was not accepted by the Tribunal and hence the Tribunal has stated as “Such reason is prima facie not acceptable”. With regard to the alteration of Gnanam's Date of Birth, the Tribunal has observed that the alteration of Date of Birth has to be examined with reference to the evidence put forward. Further while deciding the case of the Government, the Tribunal appreciated the registration of birth as a reliable evidence. Unless and otherwise, there are reasons to hold that the registration cannot relate to the applicant, it would not be proper to reject such evidence. It is further observed by the Tribunal that so long as there is no evidence to the contrary, the registration should be taken as an acceptable evidence. Accordingly, the relief sought for by the petitioner Gnanam was granted. 10. It is further observed by the Tribunal that so long as there is no evidence to the contrary, the registration should be taken as an acceptable evidence. Accordingly, the relief sought for by the petitioner Gnanam was granted. 10. So far as the case on hand is concerned, as already discussed above the petitioner produced the marriage invitation card of the petitioner's parents, Birth extract of the petitioner issued by the Birth and Death Registrar's Office and the birth extract of his younger sister, by the petitioner for altering Date of Birth of the petitioner. The Tribunal ought to have appreciated the materials produced by the petitioner and could have arrived at a right conclusion by allowing the petition. However, the Tribunal without proper appreciation of relevant facts and materials available, simply rejected the claim of the petitioner, by stating that if really the petitioner was born in 1951, he could not have passed S.S.L.C. examination in 1965. Such reason stated by the Tribunal for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is not at all sustainable in law”. 18. The very competent Special Government Pleader Mr. T.N. Rajagopalan submits that as per the school's entry the petitioner's date of birth was 01.02.1966 which is appropriate for seeking admission in the 1st Standard since she has completed five years. If the date of birth of the petitioner is considered as 02.02.1967 then the writ petitioner was not being eligible for admission to 1st Standard since not being five years of age. Therefore, the petitioner's claim is not bonafide, besides as an after thought she is seeking a remedy in order to prolong in the Government Service beyond superannuation. The 1st respondent had passed the impugned order, after well considering the valid documents of the writ petitioner namely School Certificates, connected testimonials especially S.S.L.C. Book first page which contains the correct date of birth, this is also a public record. Further, the petitioner cannot claim an alteration in the date of birth on the basis of her brother's date of birth and her relatives oral evidence. Further the petitioner had initially been appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 15.05.1988, as such she has to claim her date of birth with a period of 5 years i.e. on or before 14.05.1993 but the petitioner's claim is an after thought. Further the petitioner had initially been appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 15.05.1988, as such she has to claim her date of birth with a period of 5 years i.e. on or before 14.05.1993 but the petitioner's claim is an after thought. The 1st respondent's order passed and based on the relevant authenticated documents therefore, the said impugned order becomes final. If the writ petitioner should be considered, then it would lease a trail of precedents all around the Nation. Hence, the very competent Special Government Pleader entreats the Court to dismiss the writ petition. 19. From the above discussions in the instant case, the main issue is whether the birth certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Omalur, is valid or the date of birth initially recorded by the Elementary School Authorities on the basis of the petitioner's grand mother furnishing details in her vernacular language?. This Court is of the view that:- (i) Date of birth of the petitioner has mentioned in the SSLC Book as 01.02.1966. This entry had been recorded by the school authority on the basis of oral information provided by the elderly grandmother of the petitioner. This entry was made in order to fulfill the condition that the relevant student completes five years in order to be given admission in the 1st Standard. As such, the date of birth mentioned in the school record as 01.02.1966 is unauthenticated. Therefore, the innocent Writ Petitioner at the point of admission into the 1st Standard was blissfully ignorant. (ii) The birth entry register maintained by the Sub-Registrar wherein the writ petitioner's birth was recorded as 02.02.1967, which is a parallel document regarding age proof of the petitioner. This entry was recorded immediately after the child was born on the basis of bonafide information that the child born through her parents namely Ramaswamy and Pappati. In the circumstances of such birth recording there is no chance for any wrong entry. (iii) As per Rule 49(B) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Rules the alteration in date of birth has to be rectified within a period of five years from the date of joining an office. If the relevant candidate had not applied within five years for altering the date of birth, it will be prejudiced to the petitioner, since she is having a prima facie case. If the relevant candidate had not applied within five years for altering the date of birth, it will be prejudiced to the petitioner, since she is having a prima facie case. Therefore, if the petitioner request after five years for altering her date of birth, the respondents/Government will not be prejudiced. If the petitioner's request is not considered for a bonafide claim after five years then she will be placed into hardship and irreparable loss. Therefore, the Government employee can make an application to their employer in order to effect altering the birth geniality before the superannuation or on leaving the service. Based on authenticated records, anything short of this could only result in an irrevocable smitten conscious. (iv) This Court views with paramount importance on the birth certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Omalur, on the basis of birth register, considered an authenticated document as maintained by the Government. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is not fit to proceed with any further. 20. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, the view mentioned above, evidently there is sufficient force to allow it. Accordingly the above writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.118 Revenue (Services) II Dept. dated 23.02.2005 and consequential letter No.29600/Service I-(2)/2005-3 dated 23.02.2006, issued by the 1st respondent/Secretary to Government, Revenue Department is quashed. Accordingly ordered.