1 WP 9095.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9095 OF 2010 Smt. Kamal Govindrao Chavan .... PETITIONER V E R S U S Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad. .... RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. P.B.Shirsath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.D.Godbharle, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 24/01/2011 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner vide the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondent – university, thereby refusing to correct the date of birth of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed as sweeper with the respondent 2 WP 9095.2010 on 2/7/2002. The petitioner was directed to produce the documents such as Birth Certificate, educational qualification, etc. within eight ( 8 ) days from the date of joining. The petitioner did not produce the same. As per one of the conditions in the appointment order, the petitioner was referred to Medical Officer, Health Centre for medical fitness certificate. In the said Certificate, the age of the petitioner is mentioned as 46 years. The same was recorded as per the statement of the petitioner. The petitioner did not produce the Birth Certificate within eight ( 8 ) days as per the condition in the appointment order. The petitioner was referred to the Medical Board, Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad. The Medical Board has issued the Certificate and opined that the present age of the petitioner is within the range of 54 plus minus 2 years on 25/8/2004 and in view of the same, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 25/8/1950 in the service book. The seniority list was published in the year 2008. At that time, the petitioner submitted her objection for correction of her date of birth as 17/6/1956 in place of 25/8/1950. The same was rejected. Hence, the present Writ Petition by the petitioner. 3. Mr. Shirsath, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Village Panchayat, Waregaon has issued the Certificate showing her date of birth as 17/6/1956. In view of the said certificate issued by the competent authority, the respondent should have corrected the date of birth 3 WP 9095.2010 as 17/6/1956. The learned counsel contended that the said certificate has got presumptive value and is issued in due course by the Village Panchayat. As initially the said certificate was not in proper form, subsequently the certificate in proper form was also submitted, but the respondents have failed to consider the same. According to the petitioner, the petitioner would loose four ( 4 ) years of service, so also monitory benefits. According to the learned counsel, when the birth certificate issued by the competent authority under the statute, was before the respondent, the respondent could not have relied on the opinion of the Medical Board and the said certificate which has presumptive value, should have been considered. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no authenticate certificate on record. The Medical Board has opined after examining the petitioner. The certificate which is issued will not attract any presumption. 5. We have heard the learned counsel at length. 6. It is not disputed that the petitioner had not submitted the birth certificate within the stipulated period. Initially, for the purpose of examining the fitness, the petitioner was referred to the Medical Officer. At that time, on the basis of representation of the petitioner, her age was 4 WP 9095.2010 recorded as 46 years. But, as no birth certificate was produced by the petitioner, the respondent referred the petitioner to the Medical Board for her examination with reference to her age. After thorough examination, the Medical Board opined her age as 54 plus minus 2 years on the date of examination i.e. 2004 and pursuant thereto in the year 2004, her date of birth was recorded as 25/8/1950. After four ( 4 ) years, the petitioner raised an objection regarding her date of birth. The certificate which is produced on record purported to be in proper form is issued on 14/8/2010. The perusal of the said certificate also shows the date of registration of the date of birth as 14/8/2010. No presumption could be attached to such a certificate under the provisions of the Birth and Death Registration Act. More over, the petitioner had not submitted any proof of her date of birth at the time of appointment order. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the medical opinion. In absence of any evidence on record regarding the date of birth, the order passed by the respondent can not be faulted with. 7. In light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] knp/WP 9095.2010