Dismissed¶20

Leela Tukaram Toge v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC4 Nov 2025WP/10890/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, writ petition dismissed - correction of date of birth in service book (01.06.1968 to 03.11.1970) refused; Rule 38(2) Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules five-year limit; belated application at fag end of service with six months remaining; Arogya Sevika; District Health Officer Ahilyanagar communication dated 03.04.2025; birth register entry Panchayat Samiti Pathardi; apparent additions in birth register photocopy; constitutional powers not exercised.

What did the court decide?

A change in date of birth is permissible under Rule 38(2) only within the first five years of service, and the petitioner made no such attempt within five years of her entry into service and offered no proper explanation for the delay. ¶19

Leela Tukaram Toge Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's date of birth in her service book can be corrected from 01.06.1968 to 03.11.1970 and the District Health Officer, Ahilyanagar's communication dated 03.04.2025 quashed, notwithstanding that Rule 38(2) permits a change of date of birth only within the first five years of service. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Because the correction application was made at the very fag end of the petitioner's service, with only about six months of service remaining, the Court did not find this a fit case for exercise of its constitutional powers.

¶19

Key takeaways

The Court observed that certain additions appear to have been made in the photocopy of the birth register relied upon by the petitioner.¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 10890 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (coram: Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.; decided 04 November 2025; judgment per court): Dismissed. An Arogya Sevika who entered service on 24.12.1997 declaring her date of birth as 01.06.1968 (recorded from her school leaving certificate) sought quashing of the District Health Officer, Ahilyanagar's communication dated 03.04.2025 rejecting correction of her service-book date of birth to 03.11.1970 based on a birth-register entry of Panchayat Samiti, Pathardi. The Court noted that under Rule 38(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules a change in date of birth can be made only within the first five years of service; that the petitioner made no attempt at correction within that period and gave no proper explanation; that apparent additions were observed in the photocopy of the birth register; and that the application was made at the very fag end of service with only about six months remaining. Concluding it was not a fit case for exercise of constitutional powers, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:30227-DB

¶2

910-WP-10890-25.odt

¶3

{1}

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.10890 OF 2025

¶6

Leela Tukaram Toge Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and Others

¶8

Mr. G.V. Wani, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, APP for Respondent No.1 – State Mr. Ameya Sabnis, Advocate for Respondents No.2 and 3

¶9

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATE : 04 NOVEMBER, 2025

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

Present petition has been filed for following relief:

¶12

“(B) Be please to quash and set aside the communication dated 03.04.2025 issued by the District Health Officer, Ahilyanagar and further direct the respondent no.2 and 3 to correct the birth date of the petitioner in her service book from 01.06.1968 to 03.11.1970.”

¶13

Heard the learned Advocate Mr. G.V. Wani, for the petitioner, Learned AGP for Respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. Amyea Sabnis, for respondents No.2 and 3.

¶14

910-WP-10890-25.odt

¶15

{2}

¶16

There is no dispute that the petitioner entered service as an Arogya Sevika on 24.12.1997. At that time, she had given her date of birth as 01.06.1968. The petitioner contends that she belongs to the Dhangar community and that she is the only literate person in her entire family. Her parents were illiterate and were unaware of the formalities to be completed after the child is born. Her school leaving certificate was the document that reflected her date of birth, and the same was recorded in her service records. According to her, she was born in village Miri, Taluka Pathardi, District Ahmednagar. Upon search, she could now get the entry of her birth in the register maintained by the Panchayat Samiti, Pathardi, which shows her real date of birth as 03.11.1970. She, therefore, applied for correction of her date of birth; however, her request was turned down by communication dated 03.04.2025. Hence, the present petition.

¶17

The first and foremost fact to be noted here is that the application for correction of the date of birth appears to have been made at the very fag end of the petitioner’s service. As of now, only six months of service remain. Even as regards the photocopy of the birth register, it is observed that certain additions appear to have been made therein. As per Rule 38(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, a change in the date of birth can be made only within

¶18

910-WP-10890-25.odt

¶19

the first five years of service. There is no proper explanation from the petitioner as to why she did not make any such attempt within five years from the date of her entry into service. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the application has been made at the fag end of her service, we do not find this to be a fit case for exercise of our constitutional powers.

¶20

The writ petition stands dismissed.

¶21

[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]

¶22

S P Rane

Leela Tukaram Toge v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leela Tukaram Toge v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagubai Shripatrao Shewale and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mandodari Sonaji Panchal and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vasant Kishanrao Jadhav and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohammad Khaja Education and Welfare Society Nanded Thr Its Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Others

Sayyed Ajmeri Gousomohiuddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Allahrakhi Chiraguddin Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others