JUDGMENT G.NARENDAR, J. - Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. Since, both the Appeals are arising out of the Common Order, dtd. 15/3/2023, they are heard together and disposed off by this Common Judgment. 2. The Intra Court Appeals are directed against the Common Order of the learned Single Judge, dtd. 15/3/2023, whereby the learned Single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the Writ Petitions preferred by the Appellant, praying the following relief: "2. Petitioner filed W.P.No.10177 of 2020 seeking the following relief: "... to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction and failure of the respondents in not conducting statutory enquiry relating to the petitioner's date of birth in the service register as per the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 r/w Rule 2 (3) of Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently command the respondents to effect necessary changes on the Service Register as to the petitioner's date of birth i.e. to alter the petitioner's date of birth in the service register from 1/7/1960 to 10/5/1962 and direct the respondents to continue the writ petitioner in service till he attains the age of 60 years as per corrected date of birth with all attendant service benefits in the interest of justice..." 3. W.P.No.13047 of 2020 is filed seeking the following relief: "... to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Rt.No.546 dtd. 25/6/2020 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the G.O.Rt.No.546 dtd. 25/6/2020, issued by the 1st respondent and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all attendant service benefits and also direct the respondents to provide all consequential benefits with retrospective effect in the interest of justice ..." 3. The short facts necessary for disposal of the Appeals are that, the Appellant joined the services of the State on 1/10/1990. 25/6/2020, issued by the 1st respondent and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all attendant service benefits and also direct the respondents to provide all consequential benefits with retrospective effect in the interest of justice ..." 3. The short facts necessary for disposal of the Appeals are that, the Appellant joined the services of the State on 1/10/1990. At the point of entry into the service, the Appellant had furnished all his educational certificates to the department, but the age of the Appellant was not recorded in the Service Register. Thereafter, on 10/6/1996 the Appellant raised objections and requested that he be permitted to affect changes in the Service Register in so-far-as it relates to his date of birth. 4. It is the claim of the Appellant that the actual date of birth is "10/5/1962" and it has been wrongly recorded as "1/7/1960" and in that view he would be losing two valuable years of service; that the Appellant preferred Suit being O.S. No. 82 of 2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Podili, which came to be decreed on 27/9/2004. Incidentally, no judgment or decree has been granted directing the School Education or College authorities to carry-out any corrections to the date of birth maintained in their Registers or the one recorded in the Service Register of the Appellant. 5. The learned Counsel for the Appellant would strenuously contend that, the Respondents have failed to take note the scope of sub-rule (2) and (3) of Rule (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Recording & Alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 [the Rules"]. He would also submit that, in terms of sub-rule (1), declaration is required to be made by the Government employee and on receipt of such declaration; an enquiry is to be held in terms of sub-rule (2). 6. The learned Counsel for the Appellant elucidating further would take the Court through sub-rule (3) and would contend that the Respondents are mandated with the task and duty of conducting enquiry and they having failed, it is not open for the Respondents to canvass and take shelter under sub-rule (5). 7. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondents would support the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge. 8. 7. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondents would support the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge. 8. Having heard the learned Counsels for both parties and having bestowed our attention to the various submissions and pleadings, we have proceeded to appreciate the Order of the learned Single Judge. 9. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance and appreciated the ambit of Rule (2) and sub-rule (1) to (5) and Rule 2A of the Rules and, thereafter, proceeded to place reliance on several rulings of the composite High Court and the Apex Court in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited and Ors. Vs. T.P. Nataraja and Ors.;2021 Law Suit (SC) 541. State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Premlal Shrivas; (2011) 9 SCC 664 . State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.V.Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302 . and also that of the composite High Court in N.Naga Raju Vs. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh; 2007 (1) ALT 727 . Sundilla Lingaiah Vs. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. and Ors.; 2016 (4) ALT 407 . and P.S. Bheemeswara Rao Vs. Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education and Ors., . and after examining various facets and the proposition of the rulings referred to above and after appreciating the provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule (2) of the Rules, the learned Single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the writ petitions. 10. We are in agreement with the findings and reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge. 11. That apart, it is seen that the Appellant would have recorded his date of birth in the application seeking consideration of his candidature to the post. It is needless to say that one of the basic particulars that is called for in the application is the date of birth. It would also not be too far fetching to presume that the said applicant could have also subscribed his hand to a declaration that the particulars furnished by him are true and correct and that if such particulars are found to be incorrect or false then liable to be proceeded against it. In all probability, the applicant also would have subscribed to such a declaration as is the norm adopted by all the authorities advertising and inviting application for employment in public post. 12. It is strange that the employees deem it necessary to mount challenge to the age recorded always as an afterthought. In all probability, the applicant also would have subscribed to such a declaration as is the norm adopted by all the authorities advertising and inviting application for employment in public post. 12. It is strange that the employees deem it necessary to mount challenge to the age recorded always as an afterthought. In the instant case also, it is seen that, though the Appellant has entered employment in the year 1990 and he was required to make a declaration within one month thereof; we find that the Appellant erred in not complying with the mandate of the Rules. The omission on the part of the Appellant cannot be put against the Respondents and the Appellant cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. 13. The learned Counsel for the Appellant, though fairly concede that the date of birth recorded in the school records is the date of birth recorded by the Respondent authorities in the Service Register. If that be so, it is needless to say that the learned Single Judge was right in interpreting the provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule (2) prohibiting any alteration except pursuant to the decree of the Civil Court or to correct any inadvertent errors. 14. The learned Counsel for the Appellant also places reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court rendered in CIDCO Vs. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar, Civil Appeal No. 3615 of 2009. which came to be dismissed on 15/5/2009. The facts involved in the said ruling and the facts on hand are totally at variance. The Appellant also places reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court rendered in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Sanyasi Rao, Civil Appeal No. 6964 of 2004. The facts of the said case have been recorded in paragraph Nos. 4 to 8 and the facts in the instant case are again distinguishable. 15. In the case on hand, the school records evidencing the date of birth of the Appellant was filed before the authorities and it can be gainfully argued that the entries i.e., the date of birth recorded in the school leaving and college leaving certificates are particulars that have been furnished by the Appellant himself. 15. In the case on hand, the school records evidencing the date of birth of the Appellant was filed before the authorities and it can be gainfully argued that the entries i.e., the date of birth recorded in the school leaving and college leaving certificates are particulars that have been furnished by the Appellant himself. It is not the case of the Appellant that the details regarding his date of birth were not provided by him to the school or college authorities and in that view of the matter also the appeals deserve to be dismissed as misconceived. 16. It is also interesting to note that the law laid down by the Apex Court and also the observations made by the composite High Court in Sundilla Lingaiah [cited 5th supra], wherein the Court has further been pleased to direct the authorities to also take into consideration and appreciate as to whether the correct age declared by candidates would have entitled the applicant to take up public examination like S.S.L.C. / P.U.C., etc. at the prescribed age. 17. The various rulings and the reasoning of the Apex Court makes it amply clear that, an employee"s age is not to be trifled with or dealt, as a matter of course, and the same requires to be dealt with strictly in accordance with the Rules. In that view of the matter and in view of the rulings relied upon, we find no good ground, which warrants further consideration of the Appellant"s case. 18. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal No. 398 of 2023 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. In view of the dismissal of W.A. No. 398 of 2023 praying for correcting the age of the Appellant; the further relief sought for in Writ Petition No. 399 of 2023, which was canvassed separately also fails. Consequently, the Writ Appeal No. 399 of 2023 also stands "dismissed as redundant". There shall be no order as to costs. 20. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeals shall stand closed.