1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3795 OF 2009 Rajashri Mallikarjun Parsapgol .. Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.M.B.Gawade for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Patne A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATED : 26TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 16.2.2009 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Gadhinglaj, District Kolhapur in the review application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had applied for the post of Police Patil in response to the declaration dated 12.5.2008. As per the declaration a candidate applying for the post of Police Patil was required to be not less than 25 years and more than 45 years of age. The petitioner had alongwith his application submitted a school leaving certificate showing his birth date as 19.5.1984. Thereafter on 7.9.2008, the petitioner submitted another school leaving certificate issued by the Chief Registrar of Birth and Death, Government of Karnataka showing his birth date as 12.3.1983. It is on the basis of this certificate the petitioner 2 claims that he was eligible to be appointed as Police Patil. Mr.Gawade, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the concerned authority ought to have taken into consideration the school leaving certificate submitted by him subsequently as the same was submitted before selection of Police Patil. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, Jee and Others (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 779. I have perused the judgment of the Supreme Court, and in my opinion this judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the petitioner had submitted the school leaving certificate alongwith his application showing his birth date as 19.5.1984 and since the age was less than 25 years he was not qualified to be appointed as Police Patil. Moreover, the petitioner has not produced anything on record to show that the birth date mentioned in the second school leaving certificate issued by the concerned authority in the State of Karnataka was correct. In the circumstances I do not find any substance in the petition warranting interference by this court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence the petition fails and dismissed as such. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)