Disposed

Mundhe Devidas Bhagawan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Dec 2007WP/7775/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court declined to express an opinion and disposed of the writ petition without deciding the merits, directing the petitioner to first file an application in Form No. 1 before the competent Education Officer (Secondary) to seek correction of his date of birth under relevant State rules.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; no order as to costs; petitioner directed to file Form No. 1 before Educational Officer within two weeks.

Mundhe Devidas Bhagawan Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 7775 OF 2007

¶3

Mundhe Devidas Bhagawan ...Petitioner

¶4

V/s.

¶5

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶6

...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Vishwasrao S. Deokar for the Petitioner

¶8

Mr. V.S. Gokhale, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶9

CORAM: J.N. PATEL AND

¶10

SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATE: DECEMBER 4, 2007

¶11

P.C .:-

¶12

1. Leave granted to correct the serial number in the cause-

¶13

title of respondent No. 3, which is wrongly written as '1'.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

3. This petition can be disposed of at the stage of

¶16

admission itself.

¶17

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court, as respondent

¶19

No. 2 failed to decide his application for change of date of birth.

¶20

It is the case of the petitioner that his date of birth came to be wrongly recorded out of ignorance; and it has been canvassed before us that the dates of birth of his brother and sisters have been recorded as 1^st June, 1955; 1^st June, 1958 and 1^st June, 1960, respectively, and they are not correct.

¶21

According to the petitioner, he has made various applications to proper authorities, but no cognizance has been taken. Presently, the petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in respondent No. 3's institution. It is the case of the petitioner that he was born on 2^nd March, 1951, whereas his date of birth came to be recorded as 1^st June, 1950.

¶22

In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondents

¶23

No. 1 and 2, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to change his date of birth from 1^st June, 1950 to 2^nd March, 1951, as the petitioner has sought correction in the entry of date of birth in

¶24

¶25

his original Service Book, which was recorded way back in the year 1978.

¶26

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is only after the petitioner came across his correct Birth Certificate that he realised that his date of birth was wrongly recorded in his Service Book. It is, therefore, submitted that the authorities be directed to take a decision in the matter of correction of his date of birth in accordance with Rule 26 and Appendix Six of the Secondary Schools Code [amended as per Government Resolution dated 16^th March, 1983 vide amendment No. 2/83 – Secondary School].

¶27

We do not want to express any opinion in the matter, as the issue has to be decided by the Education Officer (Secondary). It appears that the petitioner has been making representations, but there is nothing on record to show that he has filed any application in Form No. 1, as required under the amended Rules and Appendix. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will file an application in Form No. 1 before the Competent

¶28

¶29

Authority – in his case, the Education Officer (Secondary) of the Zilla Parishad concerned – within two weeks, and annex all the relevant documents as required.

¶30

On such application being made, the respondentEducation Officer would take a decision in the matter within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the application, subject to the petitioner co-operating with the Education Officer.

¶31

Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to

¶32

costs.

¶33

J.N. PATEL, J.

¶34

SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.

¶35

Mundhe Devidas Bhagawan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mundhe Devidas Bhagawan v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Aessen Private Ltd.and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs R.K.Kamble and Ors.

B-Cat Security Services Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhansingh v Ithalrao Bhoite Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajaram Daga Kale Vs the Zilla Parishad (Secondary), Nashik and Ors.

Jacob Walter Almeida and Ors. Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors.