1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3761 OF 2010. Baliram S/o Gurlingappa Palapure, Age 55 years, Occ.Service (as Executive Engineer, Irrigation Project Strengthening Division, Omerga), R/o Class-I Quarter, Irrigation Colony, Near Datta Mandir, Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Water Resources Department, M.S. Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Secretary, General Administration Department (Service), M.S., Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 3. The Secretary, Finance Department, M.S.Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. ...Respondents. ... Mr.Rajendra Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.B.Khandare, Govt. Pleader for the State. ... 2 CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 25.08.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Chief Justice) 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Govt. Pleader for the Respondents. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Government Pleader waives service of Rule notice. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is the order dated 20.4.2010 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, rejecting the petitioner's application for seeking direction to the Respondents for correcting the petitioner's birth date in the service record as 10.9.1954 as against the birth date mentioned in the service record as 15.4.1952. 3 3. The Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that it was presented beyond the period of five (5) years from the date of joining service as provided in Instruction Nos.1,2 of Rule 38 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when 10.9.1954 is the birth date shown in the birth register and copy of the extract thereof, the petitioner had produced before the Tribunal, in view of the settled legal position that the entry in the birth register prevails over the entry in the School record, the Tribunal ought to have issued directions to the Respondents to change the birth date in the service record which was indicated as 15.4.1952 at the time of joining service on the basis of the petitioner's School record in the School Leaving Certificate. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was not that the petitioner came out with his correct date of birth being 4 10.9.1954 at the fag end of his career. The petitioner got the change in the birth date and notified in the Government Gazette as far back on 24.1.1991 and thereafter the petitioner was making representations to the Respondent authorities from 2001 onwards for making correction in the service record. It is further submitted that the petitioner had joined in the year 1976 and the amendment relied upon by the Tribunal was not applicable to the petitioner because as per the amendment made in 2008, it was in case of an employee who joined after 1981 to whom the limitation period of five (5) years applied. 6. The learned Government Pleader for the Respondents supported the order of the Tribunal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to exercise our extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in favour of the petitioner who chose not to move any Court or authority even after getting the correction made 5 in the birth date and got it published in the Gazette notification as far back as on 24.1.1991. Instruction No.1 of Rule 38 reads as under : "Instruction. -(1) Normally, no application for alteration of the entry regarding date of birth as recorded in the service book or service roll of a Government servant should be entertained after a period of five years commencing from the date of his entry in Government service." 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that Instruction No.3 contemplates departure from Instruction No.1 because Instruction Nos.1 and 3 specifically provide that all cases relating to alterations of dates of birth of Government servants as are proposed to be entertained on merits in relaxation of Instruction No.1 should invariably be referred to the General Administration Department and the Finance Department through the 6 Administrative Department concerned. 9. In our opinion, Instruction No.3 does not confer any right upon any Officer or employee to get his request for correction in the birth date, necessarily accepted by the Department. In appropriate case, the Government may be required to entertain such an application beyond the period of five (5) years. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1976, the petitioner did not make any application for almost 25 years even though in the meantime, he had got Gazette notification for correction of the birth date. It is also required to be noted that the petitioner was not a small time employee who may not be aware of his rights but the petitioner had joined service in the year 1976 in the cadre of Junior Engineer and thereafter promoted from time to time to higher post and since 1995, the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer. The petitioner however, did not make any application for change in the birth date till 2001. No explanation is forthcoming, even for the delay for the subsequent period. The contention that 7 the petitioner was making representations can not be accepted because of the settled position that filing of repeated representations is no substitute for moving a Judicial authority for redressal of the grievance within a reasonable time. The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. CHIEF JUSTICE (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp376110