The Bombay High Court dismissed a Writ Petition seeking correction of the Petitioner's date of birth, deeming it an attempt to mislead the Court. The Court imposed costs of ₹25,000, to be recovered from the Petitioner's salary, and directed an inquiry into how such an erroneous date of birth correction order was passed administratively.

1. Petition and Prayer

   • The Petitioner sought permission to correct his date of birth from 2nd June 1968 to 2nd June 1972 in his service book, asserting it was incorrectly recorded by Respondent No. 5.

2. School Records Discrepancy (Paras 2-3)

   • Petitioner's school records unequivocally recorded 2nd June 1968 as his birth date.
   • The claim of being born in 1972 was implausible as it implied the Petitioner started 1st Standard at 1 year old and passed 10th Standard at 11 years and 9 months.

3. Court's Observations on Misleading Conduct (Para 4)

   • The Court criticized the Petitioner for attempting to deceive the judiciary, emphasizing that such actions from individuals working in educational institutions set a poor precedent.

4. Penalty and Accountability (Para 5)

   • The Petition was dismissed with a cost of ₹25,000, recoverable from the Petitioner's salary. The amount was directed to be deposited into the Kirtikar Law Library.
   • The Education Officer was tasked with deducting the penalty.

5. Administrative Inquiry Ordered (Para 6)

   • The Court flagged an erroneous administrative order dated 22nd February 2024, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Miraj, permitting the date change.
   • The District Collector, Sangli, was directed to conduct an inquiry into the Sub-Divisional Officer’s actions and take appropriate measures.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• No specific statutory provisions were cited in the judgment.
• The decision reflects the principle of judicial discretion in maintaining integrity in public records and deterring fraudulent claims.

Ratio Decidendi:

• A Petitioner's claim must be credible and substantiated by evidence. Attempts to mislead the judiciary with frivolous or implausible claims will attract costs and accountability measures.

Subjects:

Writ Petition, Service Records, Judicial Accountability, Administrative Oversight

Date of Birth Correction, Frivolous Litigation, Costs Imposed, Accountability of Public Officers.