JUDGMENT : R. Subbiah, J (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 23.04.2018 passed in W.P. No. 29669 of 2014 on the file of this Court.) 1. The respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No.29669 of 2014 before the learned Single Judge, are the appellants in this appeal. The first respondent herein has filed the said writ petition before the learned Single Judge to set aside the order passed in G.O.Ms.No.75, Home (Police-2) Department, dated 08.04.1996, issued by the first appellant and the consequential letter bearing reference No.20212/Pol.1A/2005 dated 24.05.2006 issued by the first appellant and for a consequential direction to the respondents in the writ petition to alter his date of birth as 10.10.1962 in his service records. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 23.04.2018, against which, this writ appeal is filed by the appellants/respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition. 2. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, certain facts are required to be considered and they are elucidated hereinbelow. 3. The first respondent/writ petitioner herein joined as Junior Assistant in the Directorate of Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department, Madras on 28.12.1984. In such employment, he continued till 15.07.1986. Subsequently, he was relieved from the said post and joined the post of Senior Inspector in the Co-operative Societies, Madras on 16.07.1986, from which post, he was relieved on 24.01.1990. On 25.01.1990, he joined as Junior Employment Officer in Anna Nagar, Madras and continued till 15.12.1991. Again, he was relieved from the post of Junior Employment Officer and he joined the Police Department on 16.12.1991 as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I). Subsequently, on 21.05.2003, the first respondent/writ petitioner was given promotion under the Indian Police Service. As on date, he is working as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Crime Branch CID, Chennai and he is set to retire in the year 2021. 4. According to the first respondent/writ petitioner, during the course of his employment in Police Department, he came to know that his date of birth had been erroneously entered in his educational records as 20.10.1961, which had been reflected in his service records as well. On the contrary, his actual date of birth is 10.10.1962 which was duly registered in the records of the Corporation of Chennai. On the contrary, his actual date of birth is 10.10.1962 which was duly registered in the records of the Corporation of Chennai. On coming to know of the incorrect date of birth entered into his service records, the first respondent/writ petitioner submitted an application dated 30.06.1993 through the District Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District and sought for alteration of his date of birth. This application of the first respondent/writ petitioner for alteration of date of birth was rejected by the first appellant/State, by issuing G.O.Ms.No.75, Home (Police 2) Department, dated 08.04.1996. As against the order of rejection, the first respondent/writ petitioner filed a Review Petition to the Government and it was also rejected by order dated 24.05.2006. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the writ petition was filed before the Writ Court. 5. (i). According to the first respondent/writ petitioner, he was born on 10.10.1962 at Women and Children Hospital, Egmore, Chennai to his parents Mr.Thirugnanasambandam (late) and Mrs.Meenakshi. His birth was duly registered with the Corporation of Chennai on 14.11.1962, vide Registration No.491. It is stated that the first respondent/writ petitioner is the fourth son born to his parents. According to the first respondent/writ petitioner, his parents were blessed with 4 sons (including the first respondent/writ petitioner herein) and 2 daughters. The following are the birth details of the first respondent/writ petitioner and his brothers and sisters, as culled out from the affidavit, dated 02.10.2014 filed in support of the writ petition, i.e. W.P.No.29669 of 2014 : (1) The first son, namely M.T.Palaniappan, was born on 08.05.1956 and his birth was registered on 23.05.1956 in Registration No.901. (2) The second son, namely M.T.Dhanenjeyan (late), was born on 29.07.1958 and his birth was registered on 11.08.1958 in Registration No.1352. (3) The third son, namely M.T.Krishnamoorthy, was born on 25.11.1960 and his birth was registered on 15.12.1960 in Registration No.764. (4) The fourth son, namely M.T.Ganeshmoorthy (writ petitioner herein), was born on 10.10.1962 and his birth was registered on 14.11.1962 in Registration No.491. (5) The fifth sister M.T.Sumathi, was born on 15.12.1967 and her birth was registered on 30.12.1967 in Registration No.10041. (6) The sixth sister M.T.Lathamaheswari was born on 26.12.1969 and her birth was registered on 02.02.1970 in Registration No.3454. 5. (ii). (5) The fifth sister M.T.Sumathi, was born on 15.12.1967 and her birth was registered on 30.12.1967 in Registration No.10041. (6) The sixth sister M.T.Lathamaheswari was born on 26.12.1969 and her birth was registered on 02.02.1970 in Registration No.3454. 5. (ii). It is further stated by the first respondent/writ petitioner that his father was working as Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, which is a transferable post and therefore, it was his mother who had looked after the children, including their education. According to the first respondent/writ petitioner, his mother is an illiterate and therefore, at the time when he joined S.S.L.C. during the year 1978, with the assistance of someone else, she had filled up the application form and furnished his date of birth as 20.10.1961, instead of 10.10.1962, which is the first respondent/writ petitioner's actual date of birth and the said date 20.10.1961 is also contrary to the Birth Certificate. Such a mistake in his date of birth could not be noticed by the first respondent/writ petitioner, even after he joined the Police Service. While so, in the year 1993, he noticed the incorrect date of birth recorded in his service records and immediately, he submitted an application dated 30.06.1993 for alteration of his date of birth. It is his case that, as required under Rule 49 (b) of Part-II under the General Rules under the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the application seeking alteration of date of birth had been submitted by the first respondent/writ petitioner within five years of joining the Police Service, while so, there is no impediment for the appellants to effect alteration of his date of birth in the service records. However, the application was rejected by the first appellant/State by referring to Rule 16-A (iv) of All India Services (DCRB) Rules, 1971, which has no application to his case. It is also stated that the first respondent/writ petitioner had filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.4283 of 2007 on the file of the XVII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, praying for change of his date of birth as 10.10.1962 to enable the respondents 3 and 4 therein, namely the Secretary to Government, Home Department and the Director General of Police, to change his date of birth as 10.10.1962 in his Service Register. But the said suit was dismissed on 07.07.2009 on the ground that the first respondent/writ petitioner ought to have submitted an application for alteration of date of birth soon after he entered into Government service within five years, however, such an application was submitted belatedly. The Civil Court also relied on the date of birth indicated in the S.S.L.C. certificate to reject his claim for declaration of his date of birth as 10.10.1962 in the Service Records. Thereafter, the first respondent has filed the present writ petition before the learned Single Judge, challenging the orders of rejection passed by the first appellant, dated 08.04.1996 and 24.05.2006. 6. Before the Writ Court, a counter affidavit was filed by the appellants/State herein opposing the prayer of the first respondent/writ petitioner. According to the appellants, the first respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as a direct recruit as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 16.12.1991 through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Subsequently, he was appointed to Indian Police Service under promotion quota on 21.05.2003. During the course of his employment as Deputy Superintendent of Police, the first respondent/writ petitioner submitted an application dated 30.06.1993 for alteration of date of birth on the strength of the Birth Certificate issued by the Corporation of Madras. It was contended by the appellants that in the Birth Certificate, even though the date of birth was indicated as 10.10.1962, the name of the male child was shown as Ganesan and not the name of the first respondent/writ petitioner - Ganesamoorthy. Reference was also made in the counter to Rule 49 (b) of the said Rules, to contend that an application of a person, who entered the Government Service, for alteration of date of birth, shall be entertained only if such application is submitted within five years of entering the service. Reference was also made in the counter to Rule 49 (b) of the said Rules, to contend that an application of a person, who entered the Government Service, for alteration of date of birth, shall be entertained only if such application is submitted within five years of entering the service. According to the appellants, the first respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Directorate of Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department, Madras on 28.12.1984; subsequently, the writ petitioner worked as Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies and Junior Employment Officer, Anna Nagar, before joining the Police Service and under such circumstances, he ought to have submitted the application seeking alteration of date of birth within five years from 28.12.1984, i.e. his first entry into the Government Service, but such an application was submitted only on 30.06.1993 and therefore, it was rightly rejected by the first appellant on 08.04.1996 by G.O.Ms.No.75, Home (Police-2) Department. Reference was also made to the applications dated 17.05.1999 and 24.01.2005 submitted by the first respondent/writ petitioner for alteration of date of birth and the rejection thereof by the Government on 21.11.2000 and 24.05.2006 respectively. According to the appellants, though the rejection order dated 08.04.1996 by the said G.O.Ms.No.75 and the order dated 24.05.2006 were challenged before the Writ Court, the rejection order dated 21.11.2000 was not put to challenge. Therefore, on that ground also, the Writ Petition ought to have been dismissed. The appellants have also referred to the enquiry conducted by the Personal Assistant (General) to the District Collector, Chennai, during which, the mother of the first respondent/writ petitioner has stated that the father of the first respondent/writ petitioner himself had taken care of all the affairs of their children including their educational needs. Therefore, it was contended that the averment of the first respondent/writ petitioner that his mother is an illiterate and due to ignorance, she had filled up the SSLC application with his incorrect date of birth, cannot be accepted. The appellants therefore justify the orders of rejection passed by the first appellant and the consequent order passed by the second appellant, which are impugned in the writ petition, and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the counsel for both sides, allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.29669 of 2014 on 23.04.2018. The appellants therefore justify the orders of rejection passed by the first appellant and the consequent order passed by the second appellant, which are impugned in the writ petition, and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the counsel for both sides, allowed the writ petition in W.P.No.29669 of 2014 on 23.04.2018. The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is as follows:- "8. From the service details, it can be easily discerned that the petitioner entered into the services as Deputy Superintendent of Police on and from 16.12.1991. He was conferred with IPS on 21.05.2003. The petitioner had applied for alteration of his date of birth on 30.06.1993. This application is within the period of five years from the date of joining in the Government service in the capacity as Deputy Superintendent of Police. 8.1. The post through which the petitioner entered into service as Deputy Superintendent of Police is not by way of deputation or by way of promotion and it is the first time entry, through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission by direct recruitment. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner was continuously in the State Government service from the post of Junior Assistant is not correct. 8.2. His application for correction of date of birth has been made within a period of five years from the date of entry into service as Deputy Superintendent of Police, which is a service through a separate statutory body i.e., Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. ..... 14. When a public servant discharging public functions, demand correction of date of birth in the service register, which is made neither at the fag end of the career nor in anticipation of any promotion and the claim is supported by impeccable public documents and the authenticity of which cannot be challenged, then, normally, the Court must be inclined to effect the correction. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner has to be accepted and the writ petition has to be allowed." 8. Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants contended that the application dated 30.06.1993 submitted by the first respondent/writ petitioner is belated and not in accordance with Rule 49 of the said Rules (now Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016). Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants contended that the application dated 30.06.1993 submitted by the first respondent/writ petitioner is belated and not in accordance with Rule 49 of the said Rules (now Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016). As per the aforesaid Rule, an application seeking alteration of date of birth must be submitted by a Government servant within five years of entering into Government service. In the present case, the appointment of the first respondent/writ petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of Police cannot be construed to be his first appointment in Government Service and therefore, the five years period cannot be reckoned from the date on which the first respondent/writ petitioner was appointed in the Police Department on 16.12.1991. Admittedly, the first respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Directorate of Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department, Madras on 28.12.1984, which was his first Government Service and therefore, the five years period has to be calculated and/or reckoned from 28.12.1984. Consequently, the first respondent/writ petitioner ought to have submitted his application seeking alteration of date of birth on or before 27.12.1989 from the date of his first entry into the Government Service as Junior Assistant on 28.12.1984. However, such an application has been submitted by the first respondent/writ petitioner only on 30.06.1993 and therefore, the appellants are right in rejecting the same. The first respondent/writ petitioner therefore, cannot, as a matter of right, seek for alteration of his date of birth, when the application submitted by him is belated and in contravention of the said Rule 49. Therefore, the learned Additional Advocate General vehemently contended that the application submitted by the first respondent/writ petitioner cannot be entertained on the ground of delay and it was rightly rejected by the appellants. 9. The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the first respondent/writ petitioner has filed the writ petition itself belatedly. The orders, which are impugned in the writ petition, were passed by the first appellant in G.O.Ms.No.75, Home (Police 2) Department, dated 08.04.1996, and another order of rejection was passed by the first appellant on 24.05.2006. But, the writ petition was filed by the first respondent/writ petitioner only in the year 2014 in W.P.No.29669 of 2014. The orders, which are impugned in the writ petition, were passed by the first appellant in G.O.Ms.No.75, Home (Police 2) Department, dated 08.04.1996, and another order of rejection was passed by the first appellant on 24.05.2006. But, the writ petition was filed by the first respondent/writ petitioner only in the year 2014 in W.P.No.29669 of 2014. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the first respondent/writ petitioner has unsuccessfully filed a suit in O.S. No. 4283 of 2007 and on its dismissal, he has filed the present writ petition belatedly. Therefore also, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition filed by the first respondent/writ petitioner on the ground of delay and ought to have dismissed the writ petition. 10. It is further contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the father of the appellant was appointed to a Government Service and he held the post of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The appellants, therefore, cannot be permitted to contend that his father, due to his transferable nature of employment, could not look after the educational affairs of his children and left the same to his illiterate mother, who had filled up the incorrect date of birth in the school records. Even otherwise, during the enquiry conducted by the Personal Assistant to the District Collector, the mother of the first respondent/writ petitioner appeared and gave a statement to the effect that it was her husband who looked after the admission of her children into the School. Therefore, such a statement of the mother of the first respondent/writ petitioner belies the contentions of the first respondent/writ petitioner with respect to entering incorrect date of birth in the school records by his mother. In any event, the school records are public records and they can be relied on for the purpose of entering the date of birth of a Government servant. The employer of the first respondent/writ petitioner, taking note of the date of birth of the first respondent/writ petitioner recorded in the School Records, has incorporated it in the service records at the time of the appointment of the first respondent/writ petitioner. While so, the claim of the first respondent/writ petitioner as though an incorrect date of birth was recorded in his Service Records, cannot be countenanced. While so, the claim of the first respondent/writ petitioner as though an incorrect date of birth was recorded in his Service Records, cannot be countenanced. The learned Additional Advocate General also contended that merely because the first respondent/writ petitioner is not going to get any promotion, in the event of his date of birth being altered, it may not be a ground for the learned Single Judge to allow the writ petition filed by him and thereby extending the service of the first respondent/writ petitioner on the basis of the date of birth, as claimed by him. The date of birth incorporated in the Service Register will govern the date of retirement of the first respondent/writ petitioner, especially when the application for alteration of date of birth has been made belatedly. In this context, the learned Additional Advocate General relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh, reported in (1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 162, wherein it was held as follows:- "7. A Government servant, after entry into service, acquires the right to continue in service till the age of retirement, as fixed by the State in exercise of its powers regulating conditions of service, unless the services are dispensed with on other grounds contained in the relevant service rules after following the procedure prescribed therein. The date of birth entered in the service records of a civil servant, is, thus of utmost importance for the reason that the right to continue in service stands decided by its entry in the service record. A Government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of the employment is, of course, not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age. It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth, if he is in possession of irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth, the Government servant must do so without any unreasonable delay. In the absence of any provision in the rules for correction of date of birth, the general principle of refusing reliefs on grounds of laches or stale claims, is generally applied by the courts and tribunals. In the absence of any provision in the rules for correction of date of birth, the general principle of refusing reliefs on grounds of laches or stale claims, is generally applied by the courts and tribunals. It is nonetheless competent for the Government to fix a time limit, in the service rules, after which no application for correction of date of birth of a Government servant can be entertained. A Government servant, who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot, claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. The law of Limitation may operate harshly but it has to be applied with all its rigour and the courts or tribunals cannot come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights and allow the period of limitation to expire. Unless altered, his date of birth as recorded would determine his date of superannuation even if it amounts to abridging his right to continue in service on the basis of his actual age. Indeed, as held by this Court in State of Assam vs. Daksha Prasad Deka (1970) 3 SCC 624 a public servant may dispute the date of birth as entered in the service record and apply for its correction but till the record is corrected he cannot claim to continue in service on the basis of the date of birth claimed by him....." ....... 12. .....To say that the respondent, even though he signed the service-book at a number of places at different times and saw the seniority lists, may not have still come to know as to what his recorded date of birth was, is to ignore the normal human conduct and put premium on negligence. The observations of CAT quoted above are neither logical nor sound. The observations of CAT quoted above are neither logical nor sound. Of course, Note 5 to FR 56 (m) was incorporated only in 1979 and it provides for request to be made for correction of date of birth within five years from the date of entry into service but what is necessary to be examined is the intention of the rule-making authority in providing the period of limitation for seeking the correction of the date of birth of the Government servant viz., to discourage stale claims and belated applications for alteration of date of birth recorded in the service-book at the time of initial entry. It is the duty of the courts and tribunals to promote that intention by an intelligible and harmonious interpretation to the rule rather than choke its operation. The interpretation has to be the one which advances the intention and not the one which frustrates it. It could not be the intention of the rule-making authority to give unlimited time to seek correction of date of birth, after 1979, to those government servants who had joined the service prior to 1979 but restrict it to the five year period for those who enter service after 1979. Indeed, if a Government servant, already in service for a long time, had applied for correction of date of birth before 1979, it would not be permissible to non-suit him on the ground that he had not applied for correction within five years of his entry into service, but the case of Government servant who aplied for correction of date of birth only after 1979 stands on a different footing. It would be appropriate and in tune with harmonious construction of the provision to hold that in the case of those Government servants who were already in service before 1979, for a period of more than five years, and who intended to have their date of birth corrected after 1979, but in any event not later than five years after the coming into force of the amendment in 1979. This view would be in consonance with the intention of the rule-making authority. ...... 15. In the instant case, the date of birth recorded at the time of entry of the respondent into service as May 20, 1934 had continued to exist unchallenged between 1956 and September 1991, for almost three and a half decades. This view would be in consonance with the intention of the rule-making authority. ...... 15. In the instant case, the date of birth recorded at the time of entry of the respondent into service as May 20, 1934 had continued to exist unchallenged between 1956 and September 1991, for almost three and a half decades. The respondent had the occasion to see his service-book on numerous occasions. He signed the service-book at different places at different points of time. Never did he object to the recorded entry. The same date of birth was also reflected in the seniority lists of LDC and UDC, which the respondent had admittedly seen, as there is nothing on the record to show that he had no occasion to see the same. He remained silent and did not seek the alteration of the date of birth till September 1991, just a few months prior to the date of his superannuation. Inordinate and unexplained delay or laches on the part of the respondent to seek the necessary correction would in any case have justified the refusal of relief to him. Even if the respondent had sought correction of the date of birth within five years after 1979, the earlier delay would not have non-suited him but he did not seek correction of the date of birth during the period of five years after the incorporate of Note 5 to FR 56 in 1979 either. His inaction for all this period of about thirty-five years from the date of joining service, therefore precludes him from showing that the entry of his date of birth in service record was not correct." 11. The learned Additional Advocate General also placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in (i) Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others vs. Shyam Kishore Singh reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 411 and (ii) Director, Directorate of School Education vs. V. Ranganathan reported in (2020) 3 MLJ 702 (SC) and contended that the School Records produced by the first respondent/writ petitioner at the time of his entry into service, are the basis for recording his date of birth and those documents being public documents, were relied on by the employer to record the date of birth of the first respondent/writ petitioner. The date which was recorded in the Service Records of the first respondent/writ petitioner, will determine the date of his retirement and the claim for alteration made at the fag end of his retirement, need not be entertained by this Court. The learned Additional Advocate General therefore prayed for allowing this appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. Mr.Karthick, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner, justifying the order passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent/writ petitioner, submitted that the previous services rendered by the first respondent/writ petitioner as Junior Assistant, Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies and Junior Employment Officer prior to his appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police, are independent and fresh service in different Departments. Even otherwise, in none of the previous employment, the first respondent/writ petitioner had rendered more than five years of service and therefore also, the question of submitting an application for alteration of date of birth within a period of five years as per Rule 49 of the said Rules, will not arise. It was only in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police, the first respondent/writ petitioner had continuously rendered service. The first respondent/writ petitioner was appointed to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police after clearing the examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and therefore, the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police is an independent and fresh service. In such event, the previous services rendered by the first respondent/writ petitioner will not come within the purview of the said Rule 49. Therefore, to satisfy Rule 49 of the said Rules, the date of appointment of the first respondent/writ petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 16.12.1991 alone has to be reckoned and within five years, the application dated 30.06.1993 has been submitted. The word "such entry" employed in Rule 49, shall mean the date on which the first respondent/writ petitioner was appointed to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and during the course of such service, the application for alteration of date of birth was submitted on 30.06.1993. However, the appellants erroneously held that the application of the first respondent/writ petitioner was belated by reckoning the date of appointment of the first respondent/writ petitioner as Junior Assistant on 28.12.1984. 13. However, the appellants erroneously held that the application of the first respondent/writ petitioner was belated by reckoning the date of appointment of the first respondent/writ petitioner as Junior Assistant on 28.12.1984. 13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner vehemently contended that the appellants did not dispute the validity and/or genuineness of the Birth Certificate issued to the first respondent/writ petitioner. Therefore, the claim of the first respondent/writ petitioner for alteration of date of birth, based on the Birth Certificate issued by the Birth and Death Registration Authority, ought to have been accepted by the appellants. After rejection of the applications for alteration of date of birth, the first respondent/writ petitioner, on a wrong legal advice, has instituted a suit in O.S.No.4283 of 2007 for a declaration to declare his date of birth as 10.10.1962 and the suit was dismissed on 07.07.2009, holding that the first respondent/writ petitioner had not made any requisition within five years period from the date of his joining into service. Thereafter, the present writ petition in W.P.No.29669 of 2014 was filed before this Court assailing the orders of rejection. The first respondent/writ petitioner had continuously asserted his right and had taken steps to alter the date of birth in the Service Records at the earliest point of time, while so, it cannot be said that the invocation of Writ Jurisdiction by the first respondent/writ petitioner, is belated. 14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner also invited the attention of this Court to the fact that the first respondent/writ petitioner, along with the application dated 30.06.1993 for alteration of date of birth, has not only enclosed the Birth Certificate issued to him, but also the Birth Certificates issued to his siblings to substantiate that the date of birth incorporated in the Birth Certificate issued to him, is not only genuine, but also probable. However, the application for alteration of date of birth had been rejected on the ground that there is a difference in the name indicated in the Birth Certificate and the SSLC Certificate. According to the learned Senior Counsel, there is no diametrically different name indicated in the Birth Certificate as well as the SSLC Certificate warranting rejection of the application for alteration of date of birth. According to the learned Senior Counsel, there is no diametrically different name indicated in the Birth Certificate as well as the SSLC Certificate warranting rejection of the application for alteration of date of birth. When the appellants had not doubted the genuineness of the Birth Certificate, the name of the parents mentioned therein tallies, besides, the Birth Certificates of the siblings of the first respondent/writ petitioner, is probable, rejecting the claim of the first respondent/writ petitioner, citing the difference in the name in the Birth Certificate and educational testimonials, is nothing but an illusion. It is also contended that the father of the first respondent/writ petitioner died, when the entry in his SSLC Application was made by his mother, who is an illiterate. When the genuineness of the Birth Certificate issued to the first respondent/writ petitioner is not doubted and when an application has been made within five years from the date of his appointment of Deputy Superintendent of Police, the rejection of the claim of the first respondent/writ petitioner is arbitrary and not in accordance with law. 15. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner also would contend that the decisions relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General, cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. In all those cases cited by the learned Additional Advocate General, the application seeking alteration of date of birth has been made at the fag end of the service of the employee and therefore, such a claim was rejected as untenable. On the other hand, in the present case, the application seeking alteration of date of birth has been made in time. The learned Single Judge, on an appreciation of the above facts, had rightly held that the claim made by the first respondent/writ petitioner herein is valid and allowed the Writ Petition. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner therefore prayed for dismissal of the Writ Appeal. 16. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent. We have also perused the materials placed, including the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 17. 16. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent. We have also perused the materials placed, including the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 17. Before venturing into the factual aspects projected in this case, it is note-worthy and appropriate to refer to Rule 49(a) & (b) of Part-II under the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, which is extracted hereunder:- "Rule 49. Alteration of date of birth:- (a) if at the time of appointment, candidate claims that his date of birth is different from that entered to his S.S.L.C. or Matriculation Register or school records, he shall make an application to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in case where the appointment is made in consultation with the Commission and in other cases to the appointing authority stating the evidence on which he relies and explaining how the mistake occurred. The application shall be forwarded to the Board of Revenue for report after investigation by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Collector and, on receipt of the report, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or the appointing authority, as the case may be, shall decided whether the alteration of date of birth may be permitted or the application may be rejected; Provided that in case of candidate who was born outside the State of Tamil Nadu the investigation through the Board of Revenue shall be dispensed with and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or the appointing authority, as the case may be, shall examine and scrutinise the records that may be produced by the candidate and shall decide whether the alteration of date of birth may be permitted or the application may be rejected. (b) After a person entered service, an application to alter the date of birth as entered in the official records shall be entertained only if such an application is made within five years of such entry into service. Such an application shall be made to the authority competent to mark an appointment to the post held by the applicant at the time of his application and shall be disposed of in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-rule (a); 18. Such an application shall be made to the authority competent to mark an appointment to the post held by the applicant at the time of his application and shall be disposed of in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-rule (a); 18. It is clear from Rule 49(b) that, if for any reason, the date of birth incorporated in the service record is found to be incorrect, an application for alteration of date of birth can be entertained by the employer, provided if such an application is filed within five years. In the present case, according to the first respondent/writ petitioner, he has submitted his application within five years of entering service as Deputy Superintendent of Police and therefore, there is no embargo for the appellants to entertain it. On the other hand, it is contended by the appellants/employer that the appointment of first respondent/ writ petitioner, as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Police Department on 16.12.1991, is not his first appointment in Government Service. The first respondent/writ petitioner was appointed earlier as Junior Assistant on 28.12.1984 and therefore, an application for alteration of date of birth ought to have been made on or before 27.12.1989. However, such an application was made only on 30.06.1993 and therefore, it was not entertained. 19. Admittedly, first respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 28.12.1984, but he was relieved from the said post on 15.07.1986 to take up employment as Senior Inspector, Co-operative Societies, Madras on 16.07.1986. The first respondent/writ petitioner had also been relieved of this post on 24.01.1990, and on next day, i.e. on 25.01.1990, he joined as Junior Employment Officer and continued in the post till 15.12.1991. He was relieved from the post of Junior Employment Officer and joined in Police Department on 16.12.1991 as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I). During the course of such employment, he has given an application for alteration of his date of birth entered in his Service Records from 20.10.1961 to 10.10.1962 on the strength of Birth Certificate registered in his name with Corporation of Madras. Therefore, in the light of above factual matrix, it has to be examined as to whether application submitted by first respondent/writ petitioner on 30.06.1993 is within the period of five years as contemplated under Rule 49(b) of the said Rules. 20. Therefore, in the light of above factual matrix, it has to be examined as to whether application submitted by first respondent/writ petitioner on 30.06.1993 is within the period of five years as contemplated under Rule 49(b) of the said Rules. 20. On a consideration of Rule 49(b), we are of the view that, words "such entry into service" indicated thereof, are referable to a particular service of a Government servant, during which, application for alteration of date of birth should be submitted. In other words, past services, if any rendered, will not have any application to Rule 49 (b) and it can be pressed into service only with reference to cadre or post held by the Government servant in a particular post, during which time application for alteration of date of birth should be submitted. The words "such entry into service", therefore, cannot be taken, to reckon the entry of a candidate in Government Service for the first time and it was not the intention of the Legislature while framing Rule 49(b). The date of appointment of a candidate to Government Service for the first time or his subsequent appointment to any other cadre, is not the determining factor for invocation of the said Rule 49(b), but the submission of the application for alteration of birth while holding a particular cadre, alone, will determine the applicability of Rule 49 (b). This is more so that the first respondent in this case, had not put in more than five years of service in any of his previous employment with the Government. Therefore, there was no occasion for the first respondent to submit his application within the period of five years, as contemplated under Rule 49(b). In effect, we hold that as per Rule 49(b) of the said Rules, the application submitted by the first respondent/writ petitioner seeking alteration of date of birth, is, within the period of five years stipulated thereof and the appellants are not justified in rejecting the same. 21. The next submission of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants is that the date of birth of the first respondent/writ petitioner incorporated in his SSLC records and which was reflected in his other educational testimonials, are public documents and therefore, the date of birth of the first respondent/writ petitioner incorporated in his Service Records, based on the aforesaid documents, need not be altered. It is true that the SSLC records and other testimonials submitted by the first respondent/writ petitioner at the time of his entering into Government Service, are public documents and formed the basis for incorporating his date of birth in the service records. At the same time, it must be noted that the genuineness of the Birth Certificate produced by the first respondent/writ petitioner is not seriously disputed by the appellants. It is needless to mention that the Birth Certificate of the first respondent/writ petitioner will outweigh and will go beyond all other documents, such as SSLC school records and other educational testimonials, inasmuch as the Birth Certificate is the one which is prepared at the earliest point of time. While recording the birth of a child, there is no scope or little scope for furnishing an incorrect date by his parents or guardian, as the case may be. 22. The Birth Certificate which has been given in Form-5 by the Corporation of Chennai to the first respondent/writ petitioner records the date of Birth of the first respondent/writ petitioner as 10.10.1962 and that the said certificate was registered on 14.11.1962. It clearly specifies the names of father and mother to the registration number and the place of birth as W & CH-H. Though the said Birth Certificate has been issued to first respondent/writ petitioner under the provisions of Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 read with Rule 8 of Tamil Nadu Birth and Death Registration Rules, 2000, it is to be noticed that Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 is a Central Enactment which consolidated existing laws relating to birth and death in 1969 prevailing in various States. 23. As far as the Madras Presidency was concerned, the following three enactments were in force when the first respondent/writ petitioner was born:- i. Madras Panchayat Act II of 1899 (Rural) ii. Madras District Municipality Act, 1920 (Mpt + TP) iii. Madras Cit Mpt Act, 1919 (Madras Corpn.) 24. The first respondent/writ petitioner appears to have been born within the city limits of the Madras Corporation as per Birth Certificate and therefore, would have been governed by the provisions of Madras [Chennai] City Municipality Act, 1919. Madras District Municipality Act, 1920 (Mpt + TP) iii. Madras Cit Mpt Act, 1919 (Madras Corpn.) 24. The first respondent/writ petitioner appears to have been born within the city limits of the Madras Corporation as per Birth Certificate and therefore, would have been governed by the provisions of Madras [Chennai] City Municipality Act, 1919. Under Section 327(2) and 347(2)(a) of the said Act, a notification was issued on 19.12.1929 vide Notification No.167, on behalf of the Local Self-Government by the Governor acting with Ministers of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The said notification contemplated a procedure for registration of birth/death and alteration in the clerical error or any omission of any particular entry relating to a birth or death already entered in the said registers of births or of deaths with the approval of the registrars. No correction of mistake could not be made beyond the period of one year after the entry was made except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner. The clause 2 and 13 of the said notification is extracted as under:- "2. The father or mother of every child born in the city, or in the absence or default of the father or mother, the midwife assisting at the birth, or every adult male member of the family resident in the house in which the child was born shall, within one week after the day of such birth, give or cause to be given, either orally or in writing information according to the best of his or her knowledge and belief of the several particulars required to be entered in form A or C, as the case may be, in respect of any of such birth to the Registrar of the District; 13. (1) Any clerical error or any omission of any particular in any entry relating to a birth or death already in the register of births or of deaths or any error in any entry relating to the cause of death in the register of deaths or any multiple registration of a birth or of a death shall be corrected or rectified by the checking officer (Commissioner or Health Officer of the Corporation) if the error or omission is discovered by him and by the Registrar with the previous approval of the Checking Officer if the error or omission is discovered by the Registrar: Provided that no entry shall be corrected under thus rule, more than a year after it is made except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner. (2) Any other error in the said registers shall be corrected under the orders of a Magistrate (not below the rank of Chief Presidency Magistrate, [Chennai]). An order shall not be made unless the Magistrate is satisfied, on obtaining a report from the Commissioner and after making such enquiry as he may consider necessary, that the original entry is inaccurate. (3) (a) All, corrections under sub-rules (1) and (2) shall be made by drawing a line through the original entry (but not so as to render it illegible) and writing the new entry above it. (b) Every correction or rectification made under sub-rule (1) shall be initialed and dated by the Registrar if the error or omission is discovered by him and by both the Registrar and the checking officer if the error or omission is discovered by the Checking Officer. (c) Corrections ordered by a Magistrate under sub-rule (2) shall be initialed and dated by both the Registrar and the Checking Officer. (d) If any correction or rectification made under this rule relates to the registers maintained for subjects of all nationalities other than Indian, an errata slip to Form C or D, as the case may be, shall be filled in by the Registrar and forwarded to the Registrar-General of Births and Deaths.] [13A. (d) If any correction or rectification made under this rule relates to the registers maintained for subjects of all nationalities other than Indian, an errata slip to Form C or D, as the case may be, shall be filled in by the Registrar and forwarded to the Registrar-General of Births and Deaths.] [13A. (1) Where any case of omission to register a birth or death is discovered by, or brought to the notice of, the Registrar or the Health Officer or any other officer authorised by the Health Officer, he shall, after ascertaining on such enquiry as he may deem fit, the date and other particulars relating to the birth or death, as the case may be register the same or cause the same to be registered : Provided that no registration shall be made under this sub-rule after the expiry of one year from the birth or death. (2) A birth or death not registered within one year after its occurrence shall be registered only under the orders of a Magistrate (not below the rank of a Magistrate of the First Class): Provided that no order under this sub-rule shall be made unless the Magistrate is satisfied on obtaining a report from the Commissioner or after making such enquiry as he may consider necessary that the birth or death took place on the date alleged and that it has not been registered. (3) Every entry made in the register under this rule shall be initialled and dated by both the Health Officer or the Officer authorised by the Health Officer and the Registrar.] 25. The certificate which was produced before the learned Single Judge and before us appears to be an extract of the entries made in the Register as early as 14.11.1962. As per the said procedure, birth or death was to be registered within one week from the date of birth or death. Therefore, we do not find any reasons to question the correctness of details of the birth certificate issued to the first respondent/writ petitioner under the provisions of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 read with Rule 8 of Tamil Nadu Birth and Death Registration Rules, 2000. 26. Therefore, we do not find any reasons to question the correctness of details of the birth certificate issued to the first respondent/writ petitioner under the provisions of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 read with Rule 8 of Tamil Nadu Birth and Death Registration Rules, 2000. 26. In such view of the matter, the Birth Certificate produced by the first respondent/writ petitioner in this case, to substantiate his date of birth, will outweigh any other documents furnished by him to prove his date of birth. In fact, along with the application for alteration of date of birth, the first respondent/writ petitioner has not only enclosed his birth certificate, but also produced the birth certificates of his brothers and sisters to show that the date of birth indicated in the birth certificate issued to him is probable and reliable. While so, we see no reason to disbelieve the birth certificate produced by the first respondent/writ petitioner to substantiate his date of birth. 27. Yet another submission of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants is that the name of the first respondent/writ petitioner in his birth certificate is Ganesan, but what was indicated in his educational records is Ganesa Moorthy, and therefore also, the date of birth indicated in his birth certificate cannot be relied upon. We see no force in such submission of the learned Additional Advocate General. The difference in the name of the first respondent/writ petitioner given in the birth certificate as well as the other testimonials is not such that it would invalidate the Birth Certificate issued in favour of the first respondent/writ petitioner. In the Birth Certificate, the name of the first respondent/writ petitioner is mentioned as Ganesan, but in the educational testimonials it was Ganeshmoorthy. Such difference in the name of the first respondent/writ petitioner is probable, reasonable and common, particularly, when the names of the parents of the first respondent-writ petitioner are clearly mentioned in the Birth Certificate, and therefore, it will not be a ground for outright rejection of the Birth Certificate issued in favour. 28. The learned Additional Advocate General further contended that the order of rejections, which are subjected to challenge in the writ petitions, have been passed on 08.04.1996 and 24.05.2006 respectively. 28. The learned Additional Advocate General further contended that the order of rejections, which are subjected to challenge in the writ petitions, have been passed on 08.04.1996 and 24.05.2006 respectively. However, the first respondent/writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition only in the year 2014, after dismissal of the suit in O.S. No. 4283 of 2007 filed by him. We see no force in this submission of the learned Additional Advocate General. There is no limitation prescribed for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. Even otherwise, the remedy as against the orders of rejection for the first respondent/writ petitioner, is either by way of approaching the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, or filing a Writ Petition before this Court. However, the first respondent/writ petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.4283 of 2007 for declaration of his date of birth. The said suit was dismissed on 07.07.2009 and thereafter, the present writ petition was filed in the year 2014. However, such a delay in approaching this Court by way of filing a Writ Petition, will not be a ground to oust the first respondent/writ petitioner from seeking legal remedy. Since he was continuously taking steps for alteration of date of birth, it is not as though after joining into Government Service, he is coming to the Court for the first time in the year 2014, by way of filing the present Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge also has held that the filing of the suit and its subsequent dismissal, will not be a bar for the first respondent/writ petitioner to invoke the inherent jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Article 226 of The Constitution of India and we are in full agreement with such a conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. 29. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants placed reliance on several decisions. In Union of India Vs. Harmam Singh, reported in 1993 (2) SCC 162 (cited supra), relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General, the respondent/employee therein was appointed as Peon on 22.02.1956. The respondent therein was set to retire on 31.05.1992. One year before his retirement, for the first time, he submitted an application for alteration of date of birth on the basis of the date of birth entered in his matriculation school leaving certificate. The respondent therein was set to retire on 31.05.1992. One year before his retirement, for the first time, he submitted an application for alteration of date of birth on the basis of the date of birth entered in his matriculation school leaving certificate. The Supreme Court held that the application submitted by the respondent is belated, besides, he had occasion to verify his service record during the course of his service, but he has not chosen to make a claim for alteration of date of birth. Thus, the Supreme Court held that an application seeking alteration of date of birth submitted at the fag end of retirement of an employee, should not be entertained. This decision of the Supreme Court will not lend support to the case of the appellants, inasmuch as the application seeking alteration of date of birth has been made by the first respondent/writ petitioner herein within five years of joining the Police Department and it was also not disputed by the appellants. 30. Similarly, in the decision relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General in the case of Director, Directorate of School Education Vs. V.Ranganathan reported in (2020) 3 MLJ 702 (SC), the Supreme Court had held that there is nothing on record to show that the respondent/employee therein, had, in fact submitted a representation for alteration of his date of birth on 21.08.1989 itself. Further, when the Judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court on 6th December 2019, the respondent therein had attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.08.2018. Above all, the respondent therein, who was appointed on 18th July 1988, submitted an application for alteration of date of birth only on 1st February 2017, 18 months before his retirement on 31.08.2018. Therefore, the Supreme Court has held that the application seeking alteration of date of birth, was made at the fag end of the retirement and it cannot be countenanced. 31. Though several decisions have been produced for our perusal by the learned counsel on either side, none of the decisions pertain to assertion of a claim on the basis of a Birth Certificate issued by the competent Birth and Death Registration Authority. In all those decisions, for alteration of date of birth, reliance was placed only on the educational testimonials or other documents. In all those decisions, for alteration of date of birth, reliance was placed only on the educational testimonials or other documents. Therefore also, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for both sides will not be of any significance for consideration in this appeal. 32. In the present case, as held above, the application submitted by the first respondent/writ petitioner, on the strength of the Birth Certificate issued to him, within a period of five years from the date of his appointment on 16.12.1991 and it is in accordance with Rule 49 (b) of the said Rules. The word "such entry" mentioned in the relevant Rules, mean entry into a particular service. Therefore, such application can be entertained by the appellants and its rejection is not warranted especially when birth certificate produced by the first respondent/writ petitioner is not seriously disputed. The learned Single Judge also, in our opinion, rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent/writ petitioner, over which, we decline to interfere. 33. In the result, we confirm the Order dated 23.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 29669 of 2014. The Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP No. 6179 of 2019 is closed.