1 W.P.No.4449.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4449 OF 2009 Manohar Sadashivrao Dupare, Age 54 years Occup. Service, as Senior Geologist,Ground Water Survey and Department Agency,Vikas Bhavan, Adalat Road, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal secretary Water Supply and Sanitation Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. And another ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. M.P.Kale,Advocate for petitioner. Shri. V.H.Dighe,A.G.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 8th JULY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Geologist in the Ground Water Survey Department 2 W.P.No.4449.09 on 15th October,1985. The petitioner contends that he was promoted as Senior Geologist. While joining the service, his date of birth was registered as 07th July, 1953 as per school record. The petitioner contends that by communication dated 17th August,1989 he requested Senior Geologist for correction of his date of birth in service record. By communication dated 31st January, 2008, the State Government rejected the proposal of the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while referring to reported Judgment in the case Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandvikar (Smt) Versus City and Industrial development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.(2008(5) Bom.C.R.417), submits that the ground of rejection of petitioner’s proposal is not sustainable. The petitioner had made representation in the year 1989, which ought to have been decided much earlier. The petitioner has filed a fresh representation, which can be decided afresh, according to the learned counsel 3 W.P.No.4449.09 for the petitioner. 4. The respondent-State filed affidavit-in-reply. The deponent contends that the application filed by the petitioner was not in accordance with Rule 38 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules 1981. The learned A.G.P. submits that the petitioner is to retire in July 2011, therefore, at the fag end of service, issue raised by the petitioner in respect of correction of his date of birth is not proper. The learned A.G.P. further submits that the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that his father was illiterate who might have wrongly mentioned the date of birth is also not acceptable. 5. We have considered submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the Judgment cited supra. The petitioner joined the service on 15th October, 1985. Admittedly, he is to retire in July, 2011. We do not find any good and satisfactory reason as to 4 W.P.No.4449.09 why the petitioner kept quiet, after filing an application in 1989 with department for correction of his date of birth, till reasoned order of rejection on his application was forwarded by the State in the year 2008. The State Government rejected the application of the petitioner and communicated the same in the year 2008. Nothing prevented the petitioner from taking steps much earlier. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that his father being illiterate might have wrongly mentioned the date of birth can not be accepted. The certificate in respect of date of birth was issued by the local Authority i.e. Municipal Council in the year 2007. 6. In the facts of the case and considering the circumstances, we do not find any justifiable reason to disbelieve the record and the entry initially made in the service record in respect of date of birth of the petitioner. The Certificate issued by the Municipal Council in the year 2007 could not wipe out earlier documents and his own 5 W.P.No.4449.09 service record. 7. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition in exercise of our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition stands rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK