: 1 : wp-683-11=.doc USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 683 OF 2011 Dr. Swayambhoo Dixit .. Petitioner v/s. Mumbai Port Trust and Ors. .. Respondents ......... Ms. Hutoxi Tavadai a/w H.V. Kode for the petitioner Mr. H.W. Kane a/w Mrs. N.D. Motiwalla i/b Motiwalla & Co. for respondent nos. 1 to 4. ......... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATE : 29th JUNE 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Medical Officer (Dispensary) vide appointment order dated 14th January, 1984. No doubt, the said appointment order records that as per the document submitted by the petitioner, his date of birth is noted as 3rd December, 1952. However, immediately thereafter, on 17th August, 1984, the Chief Medical Officer informed the petitioner that on verification of records, it transpires that the birth date of the petitioner is 3rd December, 1951, as can be noted from the School Leaving Certificate. The petitioner was informed that the : 2 : wp-683-11=.doc department was obliged to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of School Leaving Certificate and not on the basis of Birth Certificate submitted by him at the relevant time. It is admitted position that after receipt of this communication, the petitioner did not either question the correctness of the said communication nor made any representation to any Authority or took steps to correct the School Leaving Certificate, which was submitted by him during the selection process. The petitioner, for the first time, filed affidavit on 29th October, 2007 asserting that his date of birth should be recorded as 3rd December, 1952 and not 3rd December, 1951. The department, however, did not accept this claim of the petitioner. 2. In our opinion, the grievance made by the petitioner suffers from acquiescence and laches. To get over this position, Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has candidly stated in the petition that he became aware of a decision of the High Court after reading some news item and only thereafter, he thought of taking corrective steps for changing the Date of Birth in the service records. It is well established provision that ignorance of law is no excuse. Further, merely because the petitioner became aware of the decision in 2007, would not absolve him of having acquiesced of the position noted in communication dated 17th August, 1984. In any case, challenge in : 3 : wp-683-11=.doc 2007 or now by the present petition, certainly suffers from laches in not taking appropriate steps against the communication sent to him by the Chief Medical Officer as back as on 17th August, 1984, immediately after he was appointed on the post of Medical Officer (Dispensary). Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIDCO Vs. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar reported in (2009)7 SCC 283. This decision will be of no avail to the petitioner to explain the laches, which is the basis for rejection of this petition. In that case, the employee had made representation to the department for correction of Date of Birth within specified time. No such attempt was made by the petitioner in this case. 3. Hence, dismissed. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)