1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6230 OF 2010 Smt. Kamal Govindrao Chavan, Age : 54 years, Occ. Service, R/o Nagarkhana Galli, Opp. Disha Kirana Building, Aurangabad ..PETITIONER VERSUS Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, University Campus, Aurangabad, Through its Registrar ..RESPONDENT Mr P.B. Shirsath, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr K.M. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 17th August, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V. HARDAS , J ] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated 3/9.11.2009 issued by the respondent University which is the retirement notice and also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus for correcting the date of birth of the petitioner in the seniority list. 3. It appears that in order to secure employment with the respondent University the petitioner, who had been selected, had submitted the date of birth certificate which was issued by the Sarpanch of Waregaon. As per the aforesaid certificate the date of birth of the petitioner was 17.6.1956. It appears that the respondent being completely dissatisfied and being sceptical about the aforesaid certificate, referred the petitioner for examination to the Medical Board. The Medical Board, by its certificate dated 13.8.2002 opined that the age of the petitioner appeared to be 46 on the basis of appearance of the petitioner. The respondent then claimed that the petitioner was again referred to the Medical Board sometime thereafter and the Medical Board determined her to be of 54 years (plus minus) 2 years. Accordingly that age was entered in the service book. All this was done without even apprising the petitioner about the recording of her age in the service record. Meanwhile, it appears that a seniority list came to be published in which the respondent 3 had shown the date of birth of the petitioner was 25.8.1950. The petitioner obviously objected to the aforesaid date of birth and the aforesaid objections are still said to be pending. 4. It is really surprising as to how the respondent arrived at the aforesaid date of birth of the petitioner which came to be recorded in the seniority list. If the respondent was not satisfied with the certificate produced by the petitioner, the respondent could have called upon the petitioner to produce such authentic evidence in respect of the date of birth as would satisfy the respondent. The respondent obviously has entered the date of birth in the service record of the petitioner only on the basis of the opinion of the Medical Board that the age of the petitioner appeared to be 54 years (plus minus) 2 years. Obviously, the aforesaid determination of the age by the Medical Board cannot be said to be conclusive and is always an opinion evidence with a margin of error. In any event the certificate does not state as to what were the tests carried out by the Medical Board for determining the age of the petitioner. The petitioner continued to remain in blissful ignorance about the wrong recording of her date of birth in the service record. 4 5. Since the petitioner was served with a notice of retirement, the petitioner has filed the present petition. For the reasons which we have stated above, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the retirement notice issued to the petitioner and permit the petitioner to submit an application to the respondent for correcting her date of birth in the service record as per the certificates which the petitioner may possess. Such an application to be made by the petitioner within one week from today. The respondent may decide the aforesaid application/representation including the other application/representation in respect of correction of the date of birth of the petitioner which may be pending with the respondents. Till such time as the respondent take a decision in accordance with law, the petitioner shall be continued in employment and would be entitled to all the emoluments to which the petitioner is entitled to in law. 6. It is needless to state that since we have directed the respondent to decide the applications, if any, to be submitted by the petitioner, all contentions of the respondent in respect of the belated change of date of birth of the petitioner would be available to the respondents. 5 7. Rule is made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp6230.10