WP 5393/11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5393/2011 Vishnukant Hanmantrao Barhale V/s The State & others. _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri H.V. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Shri V.H. Dighe, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 5. Mrs.R.D. Reddy, Advocate for respondent no.2. Shri M.S. Shendage, Advocate h/f Mrs.A.S. Rasal, Advocate for respondent no.4. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date: 03.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is restricting the present petition only insofar as prayer clause (C) is concerned. The petitioner is duly selected as a Conductor with the respondent no.2. However, it appears that during scrutiny of WP 5393/11 2 the petitioner’s documents, it was noticed that the petitioner’s date of birth as recorded in SSC certificate is 20.6.1979, whereas in some of the documents, it is 8.6.1979. The petitioner applied to the SSC Board for correction of date of birth, however, according to the Regulations of SSC Board, since the application was not filed within a period of three years from the date of passing of the examination, the prayer was not considered by the Board. In this background, the petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of mandamus as aforesaid. Shri H.V. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is variance in dates of birth of the petitioner in some documents due to inadvertence. It is submitted that, however, no benefit would be accrued to the petitioner as the difference in the two dates of birth is only of 12 days. Smt.R.D. Reddy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 – WP 5393/11 3 Corporation, on the contrary submits that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of facts and as such is not entitled to appointment. She relies upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dipesh Baburao Paqrdeshi V/s General Manager, M.S.E.D.Co.Ltd. & others reported in 2009 B.C.I., 140. The perusal of the record would reveal that in the SSC certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner is 20.6.1979 whereas in some documents it is 8.6.1979. It can thus be seen that there is difference of only 12 days. It is not as if that the petitioner has produced any fabricated document on record to claim so as to overcome the difficulty of upper age limit or otherwise. The petitioner is also hardly likely to get any additional service benefit inasmuch as the difference in two dates of birth is only 12 days. Insofar as the judgment cited on behalf of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation is concerned, in the said WP 5393/11 4 case, suppression was regarding charge- sheet filed u/s 498-A, 504 of the IPC. In that view of the matter, the Court therein held that the person, who had withheld the said material information facing the criminal proceedings was not entitled to equitable relief. Such is not the case herein. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is otherwise qualified to be appointed as a Conductor. In that view of the matter, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (C). The appointment order be issued in favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. Needless to state that in the service record, the petitioner’s date of birth as recorded in the SSC certificate should be treated as a valid date. (M.T. Joshi, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) Dt/- 03.10.2011 ndk/c3101133