Bombay High Court
Shobhana Dilip Kahane vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 7 May, 2021
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, M. G. Sewlikar
wp14147.18.odt
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 14147 OF 2018
Shobhana Dilip Kahane
age major, occ. Line Helper
R/o Post Tal Raver
Dist. Jalgaon Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Government Pleader
High Court,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Company Ltd.
U & R Division Bhusawal
Through Executive Engineer
M.S.E.D.C. Ltd. Bhusawal
Office at Chopde Bldg, Tapinagar
Bhusawal
3. Jalgaon Municipal Corporation
Through its Commissioner
Golani Market,
Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon Respondents
Mr. M.G. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.N. Kutti, AGP for respondent No. 1.
Mr. A.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN &
M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.
DATE : 7th May, 2021.
wp14147.18.odt
JUDGMENT : ( Per M.G. Sewlikar, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally at the admission stage with the consent of
the parties.
3. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking correction in
her date of birth.
4. Factual matrix leading to this petition is that the
husband of petitioner was an employee of respondent No. 2. He left
for heavenly abode on 21st May 1998 whereafter petitioner applied for
job on compassionate ground. On 28th May, 1999, petitioner was
called for an interview. She tendered her proposal on 3 rd August,
1999 for appointment.
5. After perusal of documents, respondent No. 2 authorised
petitioner to undergo training at Industrial Training Institute (ITI)
which she duly completed. Petitioner was appointed as Line Helper
by the order dated 18th February, 2010. She realised that her date of
birth had been incorrectly recorded in her service book as 1 st June,
wp14147.18.odt
1961 whereas her correct date of birth is 9 th May, 1964. Accordingly,
petitioner made an application dated 9 th November, 2010 to
respondent No. 2 calling upon respondent No. 2 to rectify her date of
birth. Petitioner was asked by respondent No. 2 to furnish proof
about her date of birth as 9th May, 1964. She submitted relevant
documents i.e. extract of date of birth. However, respondent No. 2
did not take any step despite making representations dated 6 th
December, 2010 and 25th January, 2011. Petitioner has, therefore,
filed this petition for correction of her date of birth as 9 th May, 1964
instead of 1st June, 1961. According to her, she will retire on
superannuation on 31st May, 2021.
6. Respondent No. 2 filed its affidavit-in-reply through its
Executive Engineer. Respondent No. 2 has contended that petitioner
has furnished all the documents showing her date of birth as 1 st
June, 1961. Her School Leaving Certificate shows her date of birth as
1st June, 1961. In Proforma A, Charter Verification Certificate issued
by the Superintendent of Police, Attestation Form filled by the
petitioner, her date of birth is shown to be 1 st June, 1961. It has
further contended that within one year from the date of joining, this
correction ought to have been sought by her. Since she did not seek
wp14147.18.odt
correction within one year, rectification as sought for by her cannot
be permitted. Respondent No. 2 has, therefore, prayed for dismissal
of the petition.
7. We have heard Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Kutti, learned AGP for respondent No. 1, Mr. Gaikwad,
learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Gunale, learned
counsel for respondent No. 3.
8. Learned counsel Mr. Patil submitted that petitioner's date
of birth is 9th May, 1964. However, wrongly in her service book, her
date of birth came to be recorded as 1st June, 1961. He submitted
that it was an obvious mistake. He submitted that petitioner has
produced certificate of birth which indicates that she was born on 9 th
May, 1964. Despite producing this cogent evidence, respondent No. 2
did not take any step for rectification of date of birth of petitioner.
He submitted that the father of petitioner has filed affidavit stating
therein that date of birth of petitioner is 9 th May, 1964. He, therefore,
sought correction of date of birth of petitioner.
9. Learned counsel Mr. Gaikwad submitted that while
wp14147.18.odt
submitting application, petitioner has mentioned her date of birth as
1st June, 1961. He submitted that in the School Leaving Certificate,
her date of birth is shown to be 1st June, 1961. While submitting
application, she did not annex certificate of date of birth to show that
her date of birth is 9th May, 1964 and not 1st June, 1961. He,
therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
10. Admittedly, in School Leaving Certificate, the date of
birth of petitioner is recorded as 1 st June, 1961. Respondent No. 2
has produced documents furnished by petitioner while applying for
the job on compassionate ground. These documents show that on
the Attestation Form, date of birth of petitioner is shown as 1 st June,
1961. In Proforma A, she mentioned her date of birth as 1 st June,
1961. Even in the training certificate issued by ITI, her date of birth
is shown as 1st June, 1961. She has produced birth certificate which
shows that her date of birth is 9 th May, 1964. This certificate,
however, shows that it was issued on 12 th May, 2008. It appears that
this birth certificate was not annexed with the application for
appointment on compassionate ground. A specific query was made
by us to learned counsel for petitioner as to when intimation of birth
of petitioner was given to Municipal Council, Raver. He submitted
wp14147.18.odt
that this intimation was given on 12 th May, 2008. This clearly shows
that petitioner is seeking correction of date of birth only after death
of her husband and at the time of making application for
appointment on compassionate ground. It appears that till then she
did not make any attempt to get her date of birth corrected. Things
would have been different if correction in date of birth had been
sought before death of her husband. But she did not do that.
Therefore, on this backdrop, especially when intimation of date of
birth was given after death of her husband, it cannot be said that
date of birth of petitioner is 9th May, 1964 and not 1st June, 1961.
That apart there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. The
last representation of the petitioner for correction of her date of birth
was made on 25th January, 2011 whereas the writ petition was filed
in the year 2018. There is no explanation for such delay. In this view
of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
Petition is also bereft of any merit. Hence, it is dismissed with no
order as to costs. Rule is discharged accordingly.
( M. G. SEWLIKAR ) ( UJJAL BHUYAN )
Judge Judge
dyb
