1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9681 OF 2010 Jayantkumar Gangadhar Khairnar ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & others ..Respondents ... Advocates appearing for : Petitioner : Shri Rajendra S. Deshmukh and Respondents : Shri N.B.Khandare, GP ... CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & NARESH H. PATIL, J. Dated : November 29, 2010 PER COURT :- 1. What is challenged in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 18.5.2010 passed by respondent No.2 - Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, thereby rejecting the petitioner's application for changing his date of birth in the school record. 2. The petitioner has pleaded that he was born on 25.8.1953 as indicated in the Birth Certificate issued by Raver Municipal Council, Raver (Exhibit "D") but his date of birth was wrongly shown as 1.6.1952 in the school record and therefore, said date was reflected subsequently, in the service record. The petitioner's case is that having read in the news paper 2 about the decision of this Court in the Civil Writ Petition No.6962 of 2006 - Smt. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandvilkar Vs. The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., dated 17th April 2008, declaring that the date of birth as reflected in the public record being maintained by the Municipal Council or Panchayat be treated as authentic as against the date of birth shown in the school record, the petitioner has been approaching the respondent authorities for correction of the date of birth in the service record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, the petitioner had already moved this Court by filing Writ Petition No.7913 of 2009 for the aforesaid relief and the petitioner was required to make an application before the Education Officer (Secondary) within one week from the date of the order and the Education Officer (Secondary) was required to decide the application within two weeks thereafter. However, the Education Officer (Secondary) has rejected the petitioner's application on 18.5.2010 on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to make any correction in the school record. It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Education Officer (Secondary) has acted contrary to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 17.4.2008 and that the petitioner is entitled to the declaration from this Court that the correct date of birth of the petitioner is 25.8.1953 as recorded in the Birth Certificate issued by the Municipal Council, Raver and not 1.6.1952 as registered in the school record and subsequent service record. 3 4. On the other hand, Shri Khandare, learned Government Pleader opposes the petition and submits that the application made by the petitioner at the fag end of his service career is not required to be entertained and that the petitioner ought to have moved the concerned authority earlier, however, before leaving the school or at least soon after securing an employment but by making such an application on the verge of retirement, the petitioner is seeking to obtain un-due benefits. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we found that the Birth Certificate at Exhibit "B" does not indicate the name of the child, though the names of the parents are indicated. The petitioner has, therefore, sought to explain in paragraph No.4 of the petition that his correct date of birth would be 25.8.1953. The petitioner has given birth dates of his elder and younger siblings. Having gone through the same, we were considering whether the matter could be remanded to the Education Officer (Secondary). However, it would appear that the date 1.6.1952 as reflected in the school record (and subsequently in the service record) must have been given by the parents of the petitioner to the school authorities at the time of securing petitioner's admission to the Primary School. The parents of the petitioner must have known at that point of time that the petitioner's correct date of birth is 25.8.1953. It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that because the petitioner was too young to secure admission to the Primary School, the petitioner's parents had given the petitioner's date of birth as 1.6.1952. 4 Thus, the petitioner had obtained an advantage at the time of securing admission to the school on the basis that the petitioner was born on 1.6.1952. Now, by allowing the petitioner to re-agitate the question of his date of birth that he was born on 25.8.1953 would mean that the petitioner would be allowed to take an undue advantage of the wrong committed at the time of admission of the petitioner in the Primary School. 6. As per the settled legal position, this Court would not exercise it's extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction to confer un-deserved advantage to the litigant, who had claimed un-due advantage by recording his birth date as 1.6.1952 at the time of securing admission to the Primary School. On this ground alone, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition for granting the relief as sought for. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE NARESH H.PATIL, J. ... akl