WP 7775/11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7775/2011 Ram Vitthal Pawar V/s The Union of India & others. _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri S.S. Londhe, Advocate for petitioner. Shri N.S. Choudhary, Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri V.R.Sonwalkar, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date: 19.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondent no.3 to carry out necessary correction in the spelling mistake in the names of the petitioner's father and mother in the SSC certificate and the mark memo. The petitioner has also sought a direction that the respondent nos.1 to 2 should allow him to submit the documents and issue an appointment order as Soldier without insisting WP 7775/11 2 for submitting the mark memo and the SSC certificate. The petitioner has been selected in the recruitment drive conducted by the respondent no.2 as a Soldier, however, an appointment order was not issued to the petitioner since it was noticed that there was discrepancy in the spelling of his father and mother's names in the SSC certificate and mark memo as compared with the other documents. Insofar as the respondent no.3 is concerned, as usual the authority has opposed the petition on the ground that beyond a period of three years from the passing of the examination, it is not permissible to make the correction. It appears that the respondent no.3 has developed a habit of filing affidavits even without taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court. We strongly deprecate this practice. We have in Writ Petition Nos. 972/2011 & 6729/2011 decided on 13.9.2011 WP 7775/11 3 in unequivocal terms held that the relevant regulations, which provide that application would not be entertained after a period of three years from the passing of examination, will be prospective in operation and will be effective only from the date of making amendment in the regulations. The petitioner having passed in the year 2007 would not be governed by the said amendment. In spite of that, placing reliance on the amended regulations by the respondent no.3, at least is prima facie contemptuous in nature. However, we do not wish to proceed any further as against the respondent no.3 in that regard. We at least hope that hereinafter when the affidavits are filed by the respondent no.3, due care should be taken to take note of the judgments delivered by this Court and while raising the grounds, the said grounds would be raised in consonance with the view taken by this Court. In any case, the grievance of the petitioner does not survive inasmuch as the WP 7775/11 4 respondent no.2 has clearly stated that even if the petitioner produces on record a certificate regarding change / variation in the spelling of the names of his father and mother duly signed by Sarpanch / Tahsildar / Executive Magistrate / SDM / the District Collector, he will be dispatched for training in December, 2011. It is further stated that the said document is required so as to ensure the identity of the candidate. In that view of the matter, we permit the petitioner to produce the certificate signed by any of the authorities mentioned in paragraph 8 of the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent nos.1 & 2 pointing the discrepancy in the spelling mistake of his father and mother’s names, within a period of two weeks from today. On such certificate being produced, the respondent nos.1 & 2 shall issue an appointment order to the petitioner and he should be sent to training as assured in paragraph no.8 of the affidavit in reply. WP 7775/11 5 Rule is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. (M.T. Joshi, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) Dt/- 19.10.2011 ndk/c1910111