Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vijay Shivaji Fasale, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking a direction to respondent No.5 to correct his date of birth in his service book from 2nd June 1968 to 2nd June 1972. The petitioner had joined employment as a Clerk with respondent No.6 Institution on 16th June 1997, and his date of birth was recorded as 2nd June 1968 in the service book. After 27 years of service, he sought the change to make himself four years younger. The court examined the school record, which showed the petitioner's date of birth as 2nd June 1968. The petitioner took admission in school on 23rd June 1981 and left after passing 10th Standard on 31st May 1984. If the date of birth were taken as 2nd June 1972, it would mean the petitioner passed 10th Standard at the age of 11 years and 9 months, and was admitted to 1st Standard at the age of one year, which is absurd. The court held that the petitioner was attempting to hoodwink the court and dismissed the petition with costs of Rs.25,000/-. The court directed the Education Officer to ensure the amount is deducted from the petitioner's salary and deposited in the Kirtikar Law Library. Additionally, the court noted that the Sub Divisional Officer, Miraj had passed an order on 22nd February 2024 correcting the petitioner's date of birth, and directed the District Collector, Sangli to issue a notice to the Sub Divisional Officer and call for an explanation as to how such an order could be passed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Correction of Date of Birth - Delay and Laches - Petitioner sought correction of date of birth from 2nd June 1968 to 2nd June 1972 after 27 years of service - School record showed date of birth as 1968 - Held that such belated request, especially when it would lead to absurd age calculations, is an abuse of process and liable to be dismissed with costs (Paras 2-5). B) Judicial Discipline - Abuse of Process - Costs - Petitioner attempted to hoodwink the court by filing a writ petition for correction of date of birth - Court dismissed the petition with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be deducted from petitioner's salary and deposited in the Kirtikar Law Library - Held that litigants must realize that they cannot file chance cases to invoke writ jurisdiction (Paras 4-5). C) Administrative Law - Sub Divisional Officer's Order - Explanation Called For - Sub Divisional Officer had passed an order correcting petitioner's date of birth - Court directed District Collector to issue notice to the Sub Divisional Officer and call for explanation as to how such an order could be passed ignoring the school record - Held that due procedure must be followed (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to correction of his date of birth in the service record after 27 years of service, when the school record clearly indicates a different date of birth and the request appears to be an attempt to hoodwink the court.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli to ensure the amount is deducted from petitioner's salary and deposited in the High Court within 45 days, to be transferred to Kirtikar Law Library. District Collector, Sangli directed to issue notice to Sub Divisional Officer, Tasgaon and call for explanation regarding the order dated 22nd February 2024 correcting the date of birth.
Law Points
- Correction of date of birth in service record
- delay and latches
- judicial discipline
- abuse of process of court
- costs for frivolous litigation
