(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 7311 OF 2007 Shaikh Hanif s/o. Mohammad Sharif, Age : 19 years, Occupation : Student, Resident of Johar Galli, Karanja, Near Chandulal Dharamshala, Beed - 431 122. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader, High Court, Aurangabad, through Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Divisional Secretary, Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. .. Respondents. .......................... Ms. A.N. Ansari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. A.R. Nikam, Advocate, for respondent no.2. .......................... (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 24TH AUGUST 2009. COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The limited grievance made by the petitioner, in the present petition, is that though a proposal has been sent to the respondent no.2 for correcting the date of birth of the petitioner, the same is not yet decided by the respondent no.2. 3. It appears that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 26th September 1988. However, in the S.S.C. certificate, it is incorrectly mentioned as 26th September 1986. 4. Mr. A.R. Nikam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2, submits that the certificate could not be issued as the office of the respondent no.2 has not received the proposal from the Education Officer. 5. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed. It is stated in the affidavit, that the Education Officer has received the proposal from the Head (3) Master of Shikshan Maharshi Dr. Bapusaheb Salunkhe High School, Beed, on 27th November 2006, along with the necessary documents for correction of the date of birth of the petitioner. It is stated that the said proposal has been forwarded by the Education Officer to the respondent no.2, by post. A copy of the said proposal is annexed as Annexure "R-1" to the affidavit. 6. We find that merely because there is some communication gap, between the Education Officer and the respondent no.2, cannot be a ground for non-consideration of the proposal for correction of the petitioner's date of birth. 7. Mr. A.R. Nikam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2, submits that if the petitioner desires correction of his date of birth, he should submit the original certificate. The learned Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to submit the original certificate to the respondent no.2 within a period of four weeks from today. 8. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. We direct the respondent no.2 to consider the documents annexed to the affidavit in reply filed by the Education Officer, as annexure "R-1", as a proposal for correction of the date of birth of the petitioner. On the basis of the said documents, which are collectively Annexure "R-1" to the petition, the respondent no.2 shall decide the proposal within a period of eight weeks from today and take necessary action in accordance with the decision. (4) 9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp7311