( 1 ) WP 221/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 221 OF 2011 Shivaji s/o Zulal Patil, Aged 55 years, Occupation Service, R/o Ranipura, Pimpal Chowk, Dondaicha, Taluka Sindkheda, District Dhule PETITIONER V E R S U S 1 The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS 2 Dondaicha-Warwade Municipal Council, Dondaicha, Taluka Dondaicha, District Dhule, Through its Chief Executive Officer Mr. H.F. Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.K. Kadam, AGP for respondent No. 1 / State Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & A.V. NIRGUDE,JJ. DATED : 8th March, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, the Writ Petition is taken for final hearing, and disposed of, as follows : 2. The petitioner joined service of respondent No. 2 in 1985. The petitioner submitted his School Leaving Certificate for showing his date of birth. As per the Certificate, it was 15th March, 1953. On 23rd December, 2002, the petitioner secured from the Chief Officer of respondent No. 2 a Certificate stating therein that the petitioner's date of birth was 7th April, 1956. This certificate was issued on the basis of an affidavit of the petitioner’s father, dated 20th August, 1979, in which, the petitioner’s father ( 2 ) WP 221/11 stated that though the date of birth of the petitioner was 7th April, 1956,he erroneously mentioned the date of birth of the petitioner as 15th March, 1953 while he the petitioner in a Primary School. He said that as per his 'private notes', the date of birth of the petitioner was 7th April, 1956. It seems, pursuant to the certificate issued by the Chief Officer dated 23rd December, 2002, the original service record of the petitioner was mutated and the date of birth mentioned therein was changed to 7th April, 1956. However, by letter dated 6th October, 2010, the Chief Officer of respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner that he would complete 58 years of age on 14th March, 2011 and he would retire on 31st March, 2011. The petitioner objected to this decision of the Chief Officer, vide his representation dated 14th December, 2010, but the same was turned down by the Chief Officer. In his reply to the representation of the petitioner, the Chief Officer stated that since the petitioner’s date of birth was not changed within five years from the date of his appointment, the change that is made subsequently, would not be authorized. The petitioner challenged this decision by filing this writ petition and prayed for quashing of the communications of the Chief Officer, referred to above. 3. Respondent No. 2 opposed the petition by fling affidavit-in-reply and reiterated his stand reflected in his reply dated 28th December, 2010. Besides this, he mentioned that while in service, the petitioner never sought alteration of the entries in the service record. He suggested that since the petitioner was working as Head Clerk since 2001 and since he had the original service book in his custody, he could have secured the change in the entry in the service record on the basis of the certificate of the Chief Officer dated 23rd December, 2002. He also mentioned that way back in 1994, the petitioner had an ample opportunity to raise issue of incorrect date ( 3 ) WP 221/11 of birth being recorded in the municipal record, but had not taken such opportunity. Respondent No. 2 further mentioned that the petitioner has a younger sister by name Chandralekha, whose date of birth, as per her school leaving certificate, is 30th March, 1956. 4. Having heard the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and the facts mentioned above, we are convinced that there is no substance in the petitioner’s case. Way back in 1994, the then Chief Officer of respondent No. 2 informed all the municipal employees including the petitioner that he would consider their objections as regards their date of birth, date of retirement and their place in the seniority list recored in the service record. Annexed to this letter is the list of municipal employees. In this list, at serial No. 29, the petitioner’s name appears with his date of birth, qualification and his date of retirement. Admittedly, the petitioner had not taken any objection to the entries and made no attempt to get the entries appearing in his service book changed. Again in 2004, similar information was remitted to the Collector. From these circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner did not make any attempt to cause change in the entries in his service book as regards the date of his birth. It also appears that in 2002, in dubious rather manner, he got his entry in his service book changed with the help of the certificate of the Chief Officer dated 23rd December, 2002. There is nothing on record to show that before causing such change, the petitioner had made an application in prescribed form to the then Chief Officer and secured an order to effect such change. All that we have is his service book with correction made in it. It is not clear from the record as to when this correction was made. Obviously, this correction could not have been made prior to 2002 when the so-called certificate was issued by the then Chief Officer. In view of this, we find substance in the allegation of respondent No. ( 4 ) WP 221/11 2 that the petitioner had got his own service record changed when his service book was with him since 2001. In any case, such change would make no difference to the petitioner’s case. 5. The second reason for dismissing the petitioner’s claim is his failure to get the service record changed within five years from his date of appointment as per 'instruction' No. 1 of Rule 38 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. Normally no application for alteration of the entry regarding date of birth as recorded in the service book should be entertained after a period of five years commencing from the date of his entry in the service. The instructions annexed to Rule 38 provide a detail procedure as to how alteration of the entry regarding date of birth is effected. In this case, there is nothing on record to show that such elaborate procedure was followed before the service book was altered. The alteration in the service book of the petitioner thus appears dubious and untrustworthy. 6. The third reason for dismissal of the writ petition is that it is settled Law that at the fag end of service, an employee cannot seek change in date of his birth. In view of above discussion, the writ petition should fail. Accordingly, Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. ( A. V. NIRGUDE,J. ) ( D.B. BHOSALE,J. ) SRM/wp/221/11/8/3/11