9.Since the petitioner referred the case of Gnanam for consideration, it is just and necessary for us to refer the said case for arriving to a just conclusion in this case. While deciding the case of Gnanam, the Tribunal has categorically concluded that the order of rejection should however contact the basis for the conclusion that the applicant's representation is not acceptable. In G.O.Ms.No.352, Revenue Department dated 27.08.1992, her representation for correction of date of birth was rejected, on the ground that with reference to the date of received 07.08.1984, she had appeared for S.S.L.C. examination in March 1952 and derived the benefits of doing so, at an early date and therefore, she cannot be allowed to get the benefit so for longer period of service. The above objection was raised by the authorities before Tribunal. However, the reason for rejecting the relief stated by the authorities was not accepted by the Tribunal and hence the Tribunal has stated as “Such reason is prima facie not acceptable”. With regard to the alteration of Gnanam's Date of Birth, the Tribunal has observed that the alteration of Date of Birth has to be examined with reference to the evidence put forward. Further while deciding the case of the Government, the Tribunal appreciated the registration of birth as a reliable evidence. Unless and otherwise, there are reasons to hold that the registration cannot relate to the applicant, it would not be proper to reject such evidence. It is further observed by the Tribunal that so long as there is no evidence to the contrary, the registration should be taken as an acceptable evidence. Accordingly, the relief sought for by the petitioner Gnanam was granted.
