ORDER : Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned letters Official Communications No.D1(B) TE/2019/376, dated 29.04.2019, No.R.A3(3)/43844/2016 dated 18.03.2019, and No.D1(A) TE/20145/574 dated 27.05.2014 issued by the second respondent and consequential official communication No.D1(B)/TE/2019/265 dated 28.03.2019 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to permit the petitioner to continue his service as per his original date of birth i.e., 08.01.1961. Since the issue raised in these writ petitions is one and the same and are interconnected and all these writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both sides, these writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Tamil, in the Department of Tamil Institute of Correspondence Education in the University of Madras on 21.12.2000 vide order of the University dated 21.12.2000. 3. At the time of appointment i.e., when the petitioner entering into service to the University, the petitioner's date of birth, according to the petitioner, was correctly recorded in the service register of the petitioner as 08.01.1961, which is as per the Birth Certificate issued by the concerned authority under section 12 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969 [in short, “the Act”] as well as the transfer certificate issued by the institution, where the petitioner had studied. 4. After 13 long years of service, the University had sent a communication on 27.05.2014 informing the petitioner that the date of birth of the petitioner in the entries of the Service Register of the University has been corrected as 02.04.1959 as per the S.S.L.C book by invoking statute 7(c) of Chapter IX of the University Calendar Vol.I, which according to the petitioner is without notice and thereby the principle of natural justice is violated. Challenging the said order dated 27.05.2014, the writ petition in W.P.No.14642 of 2019 has been filed. 5. Challenging the said order dated 27.05.2014, the writ petition in W.P.No.14642 of 2019 has been filed. 5. After the said order was passed, where suo motu the University had corrected the date of birth of the petitioner from 08.01.1961 to 02.04.1959, it triggered the petitioner to go before the Educational Authority viz., the Director of School Education as well as the Director of Government Examinations, where the petitioner had made application to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in the S.S.L.C. book, where it had entered as 02.04.1959 instead of 08.01.1961. 6. The said request made by the petitioner since was not immediately considered and it had been kept pending by the School Authorities, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.39184 of 2015, where a final order was passed by a learned judge of this Court by order dated 21.03.2016 by giving a direction to the Director of School Education as well as the Director of Government Examinations to consider the representation/application of the petitioner dated 29.10.2015 and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame. 7. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the Director of School Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, by proceedings dated 29.07.2016 has returned the proposal or application submitted by the petitioner by directing the petitioner to approach the employer of the petitioner i.e., University from whom the petitioner's application to change the date of birth shall emanate and ultimately it must reach the Director of Government Examinations through the Commissioner of Revenue Administration. The relevant portion of the order of the Director of School Education dated 29.07.2016 reads thus: 8. Pursuant to the said proceedings issued by the Director of School Education, the petitioner made the request to the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, who in turn directed the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned of the petitioner's native place at Ariyalur District i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, Udaiyar Palayam, Revenue Division, Ariyalur District, to enquire the matter and submit a report. 9. The said Revenue Divisional Officer after having conducted an enquiry had send a report on 11.12.2018, which inter alia states as follows: 10. However, the Commissioner of Revenue Administration seems to have not satisfied with the said report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, once again, he triggered the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry and sent a report. 9. The said Revenue Divisional Officer after having conducted an enquiry had send a report on 11.12.2018, which inter alia states as follows: 10. However, the Commissioner of Revenue Administration seems to have not satisfied with the said report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, once again, he triggered the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry and sent a report. Therefore, a second report was sent by the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned on 30.01.2019, where the Revenue Divisional Officer has stated the following: 11. Still not satisfying with the said two reports submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, the Revenue Commissioner seems to have obtained further clarification from the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, as to the order passed by the Thasildar concerned dated 28.06.1995 invoking the provisions of the Act for giving a direction to the Registrar under the said Act to insert the name of the petitioner in the already made birth register in the date of birth 08.01.1961 through the office of the Registrar at Ponparappi, the place where the petitioner was born. 12. In response to the said query raised by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, the Revenue Divisional Officer by proceedings dated 05.02.2019 had submitted that the concern file pertaining to the order issued passed by the Tahsildar Concerned dated 28.06.1995 was not readily available with the office of the Tahsildar at Ariyalur. 13. Based on these reports submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned as stated supra, the Commissioner of Revenue Administration passed an order on 18.03.2019, where though he had noted that the parents of the petitioner gave birth for four children viz., one male children and three female children, the first male children's birth was registered, as if it happened on 08.01.1961, female children date of birth had not been registered in the birth register and their date of birth can be verified only from the school records which are from 1963, 1964 and 1973, had ultimately given the reasons and concluded that the petitioner at the time of joining the first standard must have completed 5 years and at the time of writing the S.S.L.C. examination, he must have completed 16 years. Therefore, if the Date of Birth i.e, 02.04.1959 is found in the S.S.L.C certificate is taken into account that alone can save minimum required age of the petitioner for admitting the petitioner in the first standard as well as admitting in the S.S.L.C. examination after completion of 16 years otherwise, if the date of birth i.e., 08.01.1961 as claimed by the petitioner based on the birth certificate is taken into account, he would not have completed the 5 years at the time of joining the school in the first standard and also correspondingly would not have completed the 16 years at the time of completing the S.S.L.C. 14. Based on these surmises, the Commissioner of Revenue Administration had come to the conclusion that the petitioner's date of birth must be 02.04.1959 as claimed or as recorded in the S.S.L.C certificate of the petitioner. Hence, he has given the said order rejecting the plea of the petitioner for making the alteration in the S.S.L.C. book of of his date of birth from 02.04.1959 to 08.01.1961, that order of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration is under challenge in W.P.No.14640 of 2019. 15. In view of the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration through the order referred to above and as a consequential, the respondent University, on the completing of 60 years since the superannuation age of the petitioner at the respondent University service is 60 years, made the petitioner to retire from service thereby, an order was passed on 29.04.2019, under which, the petitioner was permitted to retire on superannuation with effect from 30.04.2019 afternoon and as per the procedure in vogue, the teaching staff would normally be permitted to work till the end of the academic year, such permission was also given to the petitioner to work till 30.06.2019. Therefore, that order passed by the University dated 29.04.2019, which according to the petitioner is a premature retirement on the part of the University against the petitioner is under challenge in W.P.No.14639 of 2019, that is how these three writ petitions came to be filed. 16. Therefore, that order passed by the University dated 29.04.2019, which according to the petitioner is a premature retirement on the part of the University against the petitioner is under challenge in W.P.No.14639 of 2019, that is how these three writ petitions came to be filed. 16. Heard Mrs.N.Kavitha Rameshwar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who heavily relied upon the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 28.06.1995, whereby the Tahsildar concerned had given a direction to the Registrar of Birth and Death at the place called Ponparappi, where the petitioner birth was registered as 08.01.1961 without giving any name and therefore, to insert the name of the petitioner. Accordingly a birth extract was given under Section 12 of the Act by the Sub Registrar, Sendurai on 05.07.1995, this was also heavily relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 17. She would further submit that, when there was a registration of birth of the petitioner under the Act was made and that was taken place immediately after the birth of the petitioner, but no name of the child was given and based on which, the Tahsildar concerned, who is empowered to give such a direction to enter into the Birth register and after enquiry, such an order was passed on 28.06.1995 and accordingly the birth extract certificate was given by the Registrar on 05.07.1995, which are the conclusive proof to establish the birth date of the petitioner. Therefore, based on which, when application was made, such application should have been considered by the Author of the S.S.L.C. book i..e, Director of Government Examinations, but wrongly they driven the petitioner to go before the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, who after having obtained three reports from the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, and in each of the reports, though the birth certificate produced by the petitioner having been accepted, only by giving presumptive reason that the petitioner since had completed S.S.L.C in the particular year where, if the date of birth 08.01.1961 is taken into account he would not have completed the 16 years and therefore his date of birth must be 02.04.1959 and on that basis he has given a negative order, which is also impugned herein, based on which, as a consequential order the petitioner, prematurely made to retire i.e., two years prior to his actual superannuation. Therefore, all these orders, which are impugned herein are untenable and therefore, they are liable to be interfered with, she contended. 18. Per contra, Mr.A.S.Vijayaraghvan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/University would vehemently contend that, if at all the petitioner relies upon the Tahsildar's order dated 28.06.1995 followed by the birth extract given by the Sub-Registrar, Sendurai dated 05.07.1995, the Tahsildar's order's file is not found in the office i.e., third report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, therefore that cannot be relied upon. Moreover, the very application under Section 14 of the Act itself was given by the petitioner only on 28.06.1995 and on that date itself since such order was passed by the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar had no occasion to have an enquiry and therefore, without any basis, since the Tahsildar passed an order, based on which, if the name of the petitioner has been inserted in the Birth Register and accordingly the certificate was issued under Section 12 of the Act, therefore, both documents cannot be relied upon by the petitioner. 19. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University would further submit that insofar as these kind of question arises as to whether the date of birth claimed by the candidate is correct or not, normally it would be referred to the Director of Government Examinations, which is the Authority to issue S.S.L.C book or mark statement, as such correction has to be made only in that document. In this regard, such an application is to be routed through the Commissioner of Revenue Administration and in this case since the petitioner himself applied to the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, who had conducted enquiry through the Revenue Divisional Officer three times and reports were obtained, based on such reports, the Commissioner of Revenue Administration had come to the conclusion that the claim made by the petitioner for change of his date of birth as 08.01.1961 was not accepted and accordingly there was a rejection made in this regard. Since that was a base order, based on which, the respondent/University being the employer of the petitioner has to act upon, so they have corrected it by invoking statute 7(c) of the University, under which, either on application or suo motu, the University Registrar has got a power to make such alteration in the service record and that has been done in this case of the petitioner. Therefore, the order passed by the University cannot be found fault with. 20. Almost in the similar line, Mr.U.M.Ravichandran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 would submit that, based on the report thrice obtained by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration from the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, such a conclusion had arrived at and if at all any such dispute with regard to correct date of birth arisen, normally such issue can be concluded only by conducting an enquiry by Commissioner of Revenue Administration through the Revenue Official and that is the procedure since have been contemplated in respect of Government Servants, even in the 2016 Act, the same procedure has been adopted in the case of the petitioner that too on the basis of the application of the petitioner. Hence the procedure adopted by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, which concluded in the order rejecting the plea of the petitioner for change of date of birth as 08.01.1961 cannot be said to be infirm. Hence, he wants to sustain the order passed by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration. 21. I have considered the said rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides. 22. Insofar as the statute of the University is concerned, they admittedly invoked statute 7(c) under the heading “Correction of Date of Birth”, which reads thus: “7(C) Correction of Date of Birth: After a person has entered, if it is found that the date of his birth entered in his Service Register is different from that entered in the SSLC book, which may be due to some clerical error or otherwise wrong entries, application for correction of such wrong entries shall be made to the appointing authority. Such correction in the official records can be made straightway by the Registrar.” 23. Such correction in the official records can be made straightway by the Registrar.” 23. For alteration of Date of Birth, the relevant statute is 7(b) under the heading of “Alteration of Date of Birth”, where, clause(i) of Statute 7(b) makes it clear that, if an application is filed by a teacher, claims that the date of birth, which is different as that in entry in his S.S.L.C or Matriculation Register, it shall be forwarded to the Board of Revenue for report, after investigation by an officer not below the rank of Deputy collector and on receipt of the report, the appointing authority shall decide whether the alteration of date of birth may be permitted or the application may be rejected. 24. Sub-Clause (ii) of Statute 7(b) provides that, if the birth taken place in outside of Tamil Nadu, such procedure referring to Commissioner of Revenue Administration shall be dispensed with and in this regard ultimately a decision can be taken by the University/Appointing Authority itself based on the merits of the case. 25. However in the present case, statute 7(b) is not invoked by the University, they admittedly invoked statute 7(c). 26. Statute 7(c) only speaks about the person, who entered office of the University and thereafter found that there is a error or wrong entries made in the Service Register different from the S.S.L.C. book with regard to Date of Birth, in order to correct the same such correction in the official record can be done straightway by the Registrar. Though there is no such suo motu power vested with Registrar exclusively under statute 7(c), this Court feels that when the Registrar is empowered to make such correction under Statute on application, if no such application is given and if it is found by the Registrar that there is a difference between the entries made in the S.S.L.C. book as well as the Service Register with regard to the date of birth, certainly, the Registrar is empowered to make such correction by invoking statute 7(c), therefore, the invocation of statute 7(c) cannot be found fault with. 27. 27. Though a stand has been taken by the petitioner's counsel that before invoking Statute 7(c), for passing an order, which is impugned in W.P.No.14642 of 2019, no notice had been given, no opportunity was given, however that has been stoutly denied by the Standing Counsel appearing for the University and he had relied upon the notice issued to the petitioner by the University on 22.04.2009, the petitioner was alerted to take steps to alter the date of birth in the S.S.L.C. book and file it. Thereafter, on 27.05.2014, further notice was issued to submit his explanation within 7 days. 28. Assuming that these notices have not been issued, it does not make the invocation of statute 7(c) fatal because the statute 7(c) power makes it clear with the following words “such correction in the official records can be made straightway by the Registrar” it means, the moment the Registrar came to know that there is a difference of date of birth in the S.S.L.C. book from that of the service register, such correction can be made by the Registrar straightway. Therefore, the question of giving any prior notice for invoking statute 7(c) by strictly interpreting the language used in the statute 7(c), may not arise. Moreover, in this case even that formalities have been complied with by the University as they have issued notice in the year 2019. 29. That apart, insofar as the merits of the claim made by the petitioner as to the correct date of birth is concerned, it is a claim made by the petitioner that his date of birth is 08.01.1961. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the birth extract issued under Section 12 of the Act. If we look at the birth extract issued under Section 12 of the Act, it was issued pursuant to the entry made with regard to the name of the petitioner of-course pursuant to the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 28.06.1995. This kind of order whether can be passed by the Tahsildar is also a question, which could be easily answered because, Section 13(3) of the Act empowers the Magistrate of the First Class, after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee, can act upon. This kind of order whether can be passed by the Tahsildar is also a question, which could be easily answered because, Section 13(3) of the Act empowers the Magistrate of the First Class, after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee, can act upon. Though the word Magistrate of the First Class or a Presidency Magistrate has been given, this kind of power being exercised now by the Executive Magistrate and the Tahsildar being the Executive Magistrate seems to have given such a direction under Section 13(3) of the Act. 30. Though there is a provision i.e., Section 14 of the Act enables that, where the birth of any child has been registered without a name, the parent or guardian of such child shall, within the prescribed period give information regarding the name of the child to the Registrar and the Registrar shall enter such name in the register and initial and date the entry. Here in the case in hand, it is an admitted fact that on 08.01.1961, the birth of a male child of the parents of the petitioner had been registered in the birth register, but it only states male child, but not the name of the petitioner and only in order to enter the name of the petitioner, such an order was passed in the year 1995 by the Tahsildar, of-course on the basis of the request made by the petitioner and based on which, the name of the petitioner has been inserted and the birth extract under Section 12 of the Act was issued. 31. In this context, assuming that the Tahsildar ought not to have issued such a direction invoking Section 13(3) of the Act and based on which, the birth extract certificate issued by the Registrar dated 05.07.1995 cannot be relied upon by the petitioner in support of his date of birth is 08.01.1961, keeping these two documents aside, whether independently the claim made by the petitioner can be accepted or not is the next question. 32. In this context, the very report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned dated 11.12.2018 and the second report submitted by the Revenue Divisional officer dated 30.01.2019 and the third report of the same Revenue Divisional Officer concerned dated 05.02.2019 can be taken into account. The relevant portion of these reports have already been extracted herein above. 33. 32. In this context, the very report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned dated 11.12.2018 and the second report submitted by the Revenue Divisional officer dated 30.01.2019 and the third report of the same Revenue Divisional Officer concerned dated 05.02.2019 can be taken into account. The relevant portion of these reports have already been extracted herein above. 33. The Revenue Department has accepted that there was a male child born to the parents of the petitioner on 08.01.1961 and that has been registered in the birth register. Thereafter, there were three children to the parents of the petitioner, all the three children are female children, therefore, there can be no dispute that the only male child born to the parents of the petitioner was only on 08.01.1961. Since the petitioner is the only male child, who claims that his date of birth is 08.01.1961, it can be accepted and that is the finding given by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the said report referred to above. 34. All these reports of the Revenue Divisional Officer referred to above though had been accepted by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration in the order dated 18.03.2019, a very peculiar reason has been found out by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration stating that, at the time of admitting the petitioner in the Ist Standard, he should have completed the age of 5 years as per the Government Order or the Rule, which was in vogue and at the time of completing the S.S.L.C., he should have completed 16 years of age and if the date of birth of the petitioner i.e., 08.01.1961 is taken into account in both cases he would not have completed the age i.e., maximum age and only if 02.04.1959 is taken into account, then only this could have been possible. Therefore, on that basis, the Commissioner of Revenue Administration had come to the conclusion that 02.04.1959 is the petitioner's date of birth and that alone shall be the correct date of birth and that should be taken into account by rejecting the claim of the petitioner i.e, his date of birth is 08.01.1961. 35. Therefore, on that basis, the Commissioner of Revenue Administration had come to the conclusion that 02.04.1959 is the petitioner's date of birth and that alone shall be the correct date of birth and that should be taken into account by rejecting the claim of the petitioner i.e, his date of birth is 08.01.1961. 35. This Court afraid on the said reason given by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration that, the question posed before the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, assuming that he has got a power to have an enquiry and sent a report to the employer is that, whether the date of birth claimed by the petitioner i.e., 08.01.1961 is correct date of birth or not, after conducting a thorough enquiry of the birth place of the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer has given a detailed report and in that report, they did accept the claim made by the petitioner that he born on 08.01.1961 and therefore that certificate issued in this regard by the Sub-Registrar concerned under Section 12 of the Act is a genuine certificate to be accepted. 36. When that being the position, the issue is to be concluded, date of birth as claimed by the petitioner i.e., 08.01.1961 ought to have been accepted and a report to that effect should have been given by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, instead, the Commissioner of Revenue Administration has gone further and invented a reason, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is irrelevant to the point in issue, which was referred to him. 37. Insofar as the power of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration is concerned, he has invoked Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conditions of Services Act, 2016, the said Act under Section 2 speaks about the application of the Act, which shall apply to the holders of all posts, whether temporary or permanent in all State and Subordinate services except to the extend otherwise expressly provided. Therefore, the applicability of 2016 Act cannot be made or extended to the staff other than the Government Servants like the petitioner, who is admittedly the University staff. 38. In this context, if at all the University invoked Statute 7(b) under the heading of alteration of date of birth that is possible to refer the matter to conduct an enquiry and file a report. Here, admittedly Statute 7(b) was not invoked only 7(c) was invoked. 38. In this context, if at all the University invoked Statute 7(b) under the heading of alteration of date of birth that is possible to refer the matter to conduct an enquiry and file a report. Here, admittedly Statute 7(b) was not invoked only 7(c) was invoked. Therefore, the power to the Authority to refer the matter to the Commissioner of Revenue Administration in this case of the petitioner does not arise. 39. Moreover, when this Court passed an order on the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking for a mandamus, there was a direction issued by this Court by order dated 21.03.2016 to the Director of School Education as well as the Director of Government Examinations to look into the petitioner's application and to pass orders on merits, based on which, the Director of Government Examinations should have taken into account the said application and decide the issue based on the documents like birth extract certificate etc., submitted by the petitioner, but for the presumptive reasons, they driven the petitioner to go before the Commissioner of Revenue Administration and get an application forwarded from the employer i.e., the University routed through the Commissioner of Revenue Administration and to reach the Director of Government Examinations. Ultimately it was a decision of the Director of School Education as well as the Director of Government Examinations that the decision to change the date of birth, alteration is to be done only by the Director of Government Examinations, which is the Authority to issue such corrected S.S.L.C certificates. 40. When that being so, why unnecessarily the petitioner has been driven to go before the Commissioner of Revenue Administration is not known. The role of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration in this case for the reasons discussed above may not arise. Assuming that the Commissioner of Revenue Administration's role is there because of statute 7(b) referred to above, even then on merits, the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer thrice made it very clear that the birth date claimed by the petitioner i.e., 08.01.1961 is the genuine date, based on the enquiry report. Assuming that the Tahsildar's order giving direction to the Sub-Registrar of the place concerned, where the petitioner's birth was registered on 09.01.1961 was made wrongly by invoking Section 13(3) of the Act, even if that order is brushed aside, the position shall not be altered or cannot be altered. Assuming that the Tahsildar's order giving direction to the Sub-Registrar of the place concerned, where the petitioner's birth was registered on 09.01.1961 was made wrongly by invoking Section 13(3) of the Act, even if that order is brushed aside, the position shall not be altered or cannot be altered. As on merits, the petitioner's claim since has been accepted after conducting proper enquiry by the Revenue Officials as stated supra that ought to have been accepted by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration and a report to that effect should have been given to the University. However, the University also has not acted upon on their own, but simply acted upon based on the report submitted by the Commissioner of Revenue Administration and accordingly they reiterated the earlier action taken in this regard to alter the date of birth in the service register from 08.01.1961 to 02.04.1959 by invoking Statute 7(c) of the Act and accordingly, the consequential superannuation as well as the retirement order has been passed, which is also impugned herein. 41. In view of the aforesaid discussions and based on the legal positions as well as the factual matrix, the claim made by the petitioner that his date of birth is 08.01.1961, since it is an admitted fact even according to the Revenue Authorities, should have been taken into account and accordingly the date of birth already entered in the service register need not have been changed. 42. However, since the basis for entering the date of birth in the service register of the University is solely depending on the S.S.L.C book of the candidate concerned, the necessary correction ought to have been made in the S.S.L.C book itself. For the said purpose, when the petitioner made an application to the Director of the Government Examinations as well as the Director of School Education they ought to have decided the same based on the available supporting documents like the birth extract and they need not abdicate the power and duty as well as the Authority by relegating the petitioner once again to go before the Commissioner of Revenue Administration to circumvent and that is how the petitioner landed in trouble. 43. In view of the aforestated reasons, this Court is inclined to dispose of these writ petitions with the following orders: That the impugned order passed in W.P.No.14640 of 2019 is set aside. 43. In view of the aforestated reasons, this Court is inclined to dispose of these writ petitions with the following orders: That the impugned order passed in W.P.No.14640 of 2019 is set aside. As a consequential, there shall be a direction to the Director of Government Examinations, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006, to take up the application of the petitioner for making the correction or alteration of date of birth of the petitioner from 02.04.1959 to 08.01.1961 and do the correction. After such correction is made, the S.S.L.C. (certificate) shall be issued by the Director of Government Examinations and such corrected certificate shall be produced by the petitioner to the respondent University, who on receipt of such corrected S.S.L.C. certificate shall revisit the order passed by the University, which is impugned in W.P.No.14642 and 14639 of 2019. On such revisiting process, the alteration or correction made in the service register of the petitioner with regard to the date of birth as 02.04.1959 shall be restored in the original position that his date of birth is 08.01.1961. As a further consequential action, the University shall also revisit the order passed by the University in W.P.No.14639 of 2019 and permit the petitioner to extent his service upto 60 years based on the date of birth as 08.01.1961. In this process, the orders to be passed extending the service of the petitioner for the purpose of calculating the backwages shall be treated only as a notional. However that period shall be treated as continuity of service for all other service benefits including the pensionary benefits as well as the retirement benefits, which shall be accordingly modified and based on which, the difference of pension shall be calculated with arrear and be paid to the petitioner. 44. The needful as indicated above shall be undertaken with the following time frame: First step, the petitioner along with the copy of this order shall make an application to the Director of Government Examinations, Government of Tamil Nadu, to make the alteration of date of birth as 08.01.1961 in the S.S.L.C. book of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such application, needful as indicated above shall be undertaken by the Director of Government Examinations within a period of four weeks. On receipt of such application, needful as indicated above shall be undertaken by the Director of Government Examinations within a period of four weeks. Thereafter, after issuance of the corrected S.S.L.C. book, the same shall be submitted by the petitioner to the University within two weeks. Thereafter on submission of such corrected S.S.L.C. book, the needful as indicated above shall be undertaken by the University within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With these directions, all these writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.