Balakrishna Eradi, J.

1. The appellant before us entered service in the Excise Department of the erstwhile Travancore State as a Clerk in 1119 M. E. In course of time he got promotions to higher grades and was ultimately appointed to the category of Assistant Excise Commissioner on 24th June 1970. The date of birth of the appellant as entered in his service book was 11th Karkadakam 1092 M.E. which corresponds to 20th July 1917. Going by the said date the appellant was to retire from service on superannuation on 26th July 1972. Shortly before that the appellant filed a petition dated 15th June 1972 before the State Government requesting for a correction of the entry regarding his date of birth contained in his service register on the ground that his correct date of birth was 2nd Makaram 1095 and not 11th Karkadakam 1092 as entered in the service register. It was submitted in Ext. P-2 that the entry in the service book had been made on the basis of the corresponding entry contained in his elementary school leaving certificate book wherein by an accidental clerical error a wrong date had been entered. Simultaneously, the appellant also applied to the Commissioner for Government Examinations for a correction of the entry relating to his date of birth as contained in the E.S.L.C. Book. The appellant was informed by the Government as per Ext. P-3 dated 7th July 1972 that the request made by him in Ext. P-2 for correction of the date of birth as entered in the service register was rejected on the ground that it was highly belated. On 12th July 1972 the Commissioner for Government Examinations by his proceedings evidenced by Ext. P-4 accorded sanction under R.3 of Chap.6 of the Kerala Education Rules to correct the date of birth of the appellant as 2nd Makaram 1095/15th January 1920 in the records of the St. Johns Syrian High School, Vadakara, Koothattukulam and in the E.S.L.C. Book of the appellant. Relaying on the order so passed by the Commissioner for Government Examinations the appellant again moved the Government by the representation Ext. P-5 dated 13th July 1972 to effect a correction of his date of birth as entered in the service book by substituting the date 2nd Makaram 1095 in the place of 11th Karkadakam 1092 as originally entered. This request was also turned down by the Government by its order Ext. P-7 dated 21st July 1972. Thereupon the petitioner came up to this court by filing O.P. No. 3500 of 1972 wherein he sought to quash the orders Exts. P-3 and P-7. That writ petition was disposed of by Gopalan Nambiyar, J. by judgment dated 26th October 1972, of which Ext. P-31 is a copy. In that judgment this court held that the Government had not considered all the relevant aspects before the appellants application for correction of the date of birth was turned down summarily by the orders Exts. P-3 and P-7 on the ground that the request had been made within two years of the scheduled date of retirement. In this view the orders Exts. P-3 and P-7 were quashed and the Government was directed to reconsider the appellants application for correction of his date of birth and pass orders thereon in accordance with law.

2. Pursuant to the above direction given by this court the Government reconsidered the whole matter in detail and finally passed the order Ext. P-38, dated 30th May 1973 rejecting the appellants request for correction of the date of birth. In the said order the Government have relied on the fact that the petitioner having been in the service of the Travancore and Travancore Cochin Governments had adequate opportunities to rectify any errors in the entries in his service book relaying to his date of birth since the Travancore Cochin Government by a Circular, dated 30th January 1950 had specifically allowed all non gazetted officers in its service to apply for rectification of such defects in the service records within a period of three months from 1st February 1950 and thereafter by another Circular, dated 31st June 1950 the aforesaid period was extended by three months from 1st May 1950. The Government have proceeded to state in its order that it was after taking note of the fact that such adequate opportunities had been already extended to such personnel that the Government issued orders as per G.O. MS. 345/PD., dated 27th June 1962 that the correction of date of birth in service books in respect of Government servants of the erstwhile Travancore Cochin Government, who entered service before 1st August 1950 would be allowed only if the correction is not to the advantage of the person concerned. In Ext. P-38 Government have also pointed out that even in respect of officers who are not governed by the G.O., dated 27th June 1962 a limitation has been imposed by G.O.MS. 39/72/PD., dated 22nd January 1972 that save in exceptional cases where it is adequately made out that the concerned officer did not and could not have an opportunity to make a request for correction or alteration of the date of birth at any earlier stage, requests for correction of date of birth will not be allowed within two years of the date of retirement. The order (Ext. P-38) wound up stating that the appellant had ample opportunity prior to the issue of the G.O., dated 27th June 1962 to get the mistake, if any, in his service record corrected and since he had not chosen to avail of those opportunities the belated request made by the appellant could not be countenanced in view of the specific provision contained in the G.O., dated 27th June 1962.

3. Aggrieved by the order Ext. P-38 the petitioner filed O.P. No. 2120 of 1973 seeking to get the order quashed. That writ petition was dismissed by Viswanatha Iyer, J., as per Judgment, dated 17th December 1973, against which this appeal has been preferred.

4. Although there may be some truth in the appellants case that his correct date of birth is 2nd Makaram 1095 (15th January 1920), as had been entered in the admission register of the St. Johns Syrian High School, Vadakara and that a clerical mistake had been committed while carrying forward the said entry into the Transfer Certificate issued to the appellant from the said school and that error was later repeated in the appellants E.S.L.C. Book and his Service Book wherein the entry in the E.S.L.C. Book was relied on, we do not find any scope for interference with the decision taken by the Government as per Ext. P-38 that the appellants request for a correction of the date of birth could not be granted. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, the appellant, who was in the service of the Travancore Cochin Government, must have been fully aware of the Circulars, dated 30th January 1950 and 21st June 1950 issued by that Government allowing an opportunity to all Non Gazetted Officers in its service to rectify their service records by correcting the entries relating to their Hates of birth, if the existing entries were incorrect and that the appellant has only himself to thank for omitting to avail himself of those opportunities. The learned Single Judge has upheld the contention of the State Government that in respect of officers who had entered service in Travancore-Cochin before 1st August 1950 there is no obligation on the part of the Government to entertain or consider requests made by them for correction of date of birth in view of G.O. MS. 345/PD., dated 27th June 1962.

5. Ordinarily, the right of a Government servant withrespect to the duration of his tenure in service is only that he should be retained in service till the date on which he attains the age of superannuation as calculated with reference to his date of birth as entered in the Service Register. For all service purposes the age of the Government servant will be reckoned only on the basis of his date of birth as entered in the Service Register. It is pertinent to remember that such entry in the service record is made on the basis of information furnished by the concerned Government servant himself and the particulars so entered would also have been subsequently attested by him. Such being the position, it is certainly open to the Government to lay down the conditions subject to which alone requests from Government servants for correction of the entry regarding date of birth already made in the Service Register will be entertained and considered. The Government orders, dated 27th June 1962 and 22nd January 1972 evidence the exercise of this power and it has not been shown to us how any of the provisions of those orders can be said to be either unreasonable or arbitrary.

6. Since the appellant had entered Government service in the Travancore-Cochin State before 1st August 1950 the restrictive provisions contained in G.O. MS. 345/PD, dated 27th June 1962 are applicable to him. Even if the bar imposed by that Government order is to be regarded as in applicable in the appellants case would still fall within the scope of the prohibition laid down by the subsequent Government order, dated 22nd January 1972 that applications for correction of date of birth cannot be made by Government servants within two years of the date of retirement, save in the exceptional circumstances mentioned in that order. We do not find anything in the Judgment in O.P. No. 2120 of 1973 precluding the Government from enforcing the said time-limit and treating the appellants application as belated in case the Government was not satisfied after due consideration of all the facts and circumstances that the appellants case could not be regarded as one falling within the exceptional category mentioned in the said G.O., namely, "where the concerned officer did not and could not have an opportunity to make his request". The ground on which this court quashed Exts. P-3 and P-7 was that by those orders the Government has summarily turned down the appellants applications by merely stating that the request was belated without there being anything in those orders to indicate that the Government had applied its mind to all the relevant aspects inclusive of the question whether the appellants case came within the exceptional category mentioned in the G.O. Ext. P-19, dated 22nd January 1972.

7. In view of the Circulars issued by the Travancore Cochin Government specifically conferring an opportunity to its employees to move for correction of the entries in their service records relating to their dates of birth the appellant in this case cannot contend that he did not and could not have an opportunity to make the request at any time prior to June 1972, when he filed Ext. P-2. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by the learned single Judge that the appellant has only himself to thank for having omitted to take advantage of the repeated opportunities granted by the Travancore Cochin Government and that the action of the State Government in declining to grant the appellants request as per the order Ext. P-38 cannot be said to be illegal.

8. We accordingly confirm the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss this appeal. The parties will bear their respective costs.