1 wp2144.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2144 OF 2011 KJ The State of Maharashtra & Ors. )..Petitioners Vs. Madhukar Waman Kangane )..Respondent ---- Mr.Nitin Deshpande AGP for the petitioner. Ms.S.P .Manchekar for the respondent. ---- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 21/4/2011. PC 1 The petitioner/State has challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 25.1.2011 by which correction of the date of birth of the respondent has been allowed. His date of birth was shown in the record as “25/7/1952” whereas he claims that actual date of birth is “17.8.1953”. The respondent joined service on 28.7.1977 and soon thereafter, much before the expiry of the specified time to make such application, he applied 2 wp2144.11.sxw for the correction of the date of birth, on 22.10.1980. 2 In order to ascertain the correct date of birth, we directed the petitioner to produce extracts of the original birth register of village-mauje Manori Taluka-Dindori. Accordingly, extracts from the birth register of 1952 and 1953 were produced. We carefully went through the said extracts. No entry of the name of the petitioner is found in the extract of the month of July-1952. However, in the extract of the birth register of May to September-1953, we came across the entry of the name of the respondent showing date of birth as “17.8.1953”. 3 As far as the latter entry the petitioners raised objection that there is some overwriting made in a different ink. Further, though the name of the respondent is “Madhukar”, name “Mahadu” is mentioned in the said entry. Hence, the said entry is not a true entry. 4 However, our attention is drawn to the letter dated 3 wp2144.11.sxw 13.4.2010 written by Tahsildar, Dindoshi, explaining the discrepancy in the name. Tahsildar has admitted that the discrepancy in the name might have been occurred due to oversight and so name “Mahadu” was written in pencil. We found that the said entry was checked and endorsement to that effect is made by the concerned superior officer on 31.8.1953. Considering these facts, we do not find that there is any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. Significantly, the respondent had applied for the correction of the date of birth within five years from the date of the joining of his service. It is a different matter that the appropriate Authority did not decide the said application one way or the other for all these years. In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view and no interference under Article-226 of the Constitution of India is called for. Hence, petition is dismissed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)