1 WP 10187 OF 2010 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10187 OF 2010 Suresh Vishnu Shewale .. Petitioner -versus State of Maharashtra and ors .. Respondents. Mr. Prasad Dani, for the petitioner Mr. Rayrikar, AGP for the respondent Nos 1, 3 and 4. Mr. Soni, for the respondent NO.5. Mr. Kshirsagar, for respondent No.2. CORAM: RANJIT MORE, J. DATED: 28th April, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioner is serving as Deputy Secretary of Respondent No.2 Market Committee. His date of birth as recorded in the service record is 1st June, 1953. It is claim of the petitioner that his real date of birth is 1st October, 1954. Petitioner entered into service with the respondent No.2 in the year 1976. 3. In the year 1993, the petitioner’s date of birth in serviced record was changed from 1.6.1953 to 1.10.1954. 2 WP 10187 OF 2010 According to respondent No.5, this entry was corrected in the year 2001 and therefore he made complaint to the respondent No.2. 4. On the basis of this complaint by respondent No.5, respondent No.2, requested respondent No.4 to make enquiry in this regard. Respondent No.4 initially appointed Deputy Registrar-I to make enquiry into respondent No.5’s allegations regarding entry of petitioner’s date of birth. After enquiry report was made by District Deputy Registrar-I, thereby petitioner was exonerated. 5. Respondent No.4 did not satisfy with this report, he again appointed Deputy Registrar-II, to enquire into the matter. Deputy Registrar II has given fresh report which is being impugned in this petition. 6. In the second report it is stated that the correction of petitioner’s date of birth in service record is without any application by the petitioner. Resolution by Respondent to that effect, accepting change in birth date, was also not passed. Accordingly it was recommended that petitioner’s date of birth initially entered into service record could not have been changed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly the second enquiry could not have been initiated after receipt of the report of Deputy Registrar-I, and secondly the enquiry report given by the Deputy Registrar II, is on the basis 3 WP 10187 OF 2010 of statement of then Secretary of the respondent No.2 which statement was recorded behind back of the petitioner. Even copy of this statement was not supplied to the petitioner. In the circumstances, he submitted that impugned order deserves to be interfered with by this Court. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents submitted that the service rules of the respondent No.2 Committee contemplates an application to be filed by a person who is desirous to enter the correct date of birth in service record and the same requires to be approved and sanctioned by the Committee of the respondent No.2. In the present case, the petitioner never filed application nor corrected date of birth got approved and sanctioned by the Committee of respondent No.2.. Therefore, no justification to interfere in the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court. 9. Having considered the submissions and having perused the impugned order alongwith other annexures to the petition, I find learned counsel does not dispute that the Service Rules of the respondent No.1 contemplate an application required to be filed for the purpose of correction of date of birth in the service record. Admittedly the petitioner has not filed any application. The parties does not dispute that in the present case the correction in the date in service record of the petitioner is not approved by the committee of 4 WP 10187 OF 2010 the respondent No.2. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned report in my jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Mr. Dani, learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that the petitioner has given fresh application after the impugned report to the respondent no.2 with request to make change in his service record, so as to make correct entry of his date of birth. Mr. Soni, learned counsel for respondent no.5 submits that this application is already rejected in view of the pendency of this petition. At present, the Administrator is appointed on respondent no.2- Committee. A statement is made at Bar that the petitioner is due to retire on 31st May, 2011. In this factum, I am of the view that the interest of justice would be subserved, if the petitioner is given liberty to apply afresh to the respondent no. 2-Committee and respondent no.2-Committee/Administrator is directed to decide the same independently on its own merit before the date of petitioner’s superannuation. 11. In the light of above observations, I dispose of the present petition by passing following order. ORDER. I) Writ Petition is dismissed. II) The petitioner is at liberty to file an application to the Respondent No.2 for correction in the date of birth in his service record. In the event the 5 WP 10187 OF 2010 petitioner files such application within a period of one week from today, the Respondent No.2 or its Administrator shall dispose of the same on or before 31st May,2011. III) Needless to mention that the Administrator of respondent No.2 shall decide the petitioner’s application on its own merits, in accordance with law and without being influenced by both the reports of Deputy Registrars. (RANJIT MORE, J.)