Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Azam Khan Pathan, was working as an Administrative Officer in Pratishthan Mahavidyalaya, Paithan, and was due for retirement within 7-8 months. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order dated 13/5/2010 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, rejecting his representation for correction of his date of birth in the school record. The petitioner claimed that his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 5/12/1953 in the school leaving certificate, whereas it should be 5/12/1956. He alleged that his parents were illiterate and had entered the wrong date. He came to know about the error in 2009 when he saw his elder brother's school leaving certificate showing date of birth as 2/9/1954. He approached the Gram Panchayat and Police Patil, but the Gram Panchayat had no record prior to 1965, and the Police Patil record showed his date of birth as 5/12/1956. He then applied to the Head Master for correction, who stated that directions from the Education Officer were required. The petitioner applied to the Education Officer on 3/2/2010, which was rejected on 13/5/2010. The court noted that the petitioner was appointed in 1977 and had been using the same date of birth for over 30 years. The court held that the application was highly belated and the petitioner failed to produce any contemporaneous evidence to support his claim. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the impugned order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Correction of Date of Birth - Delay and Laches - Petitioner sought correction after 30 years of service, approaching court just before retirement - Held that such belated applications cannot be entertained unless there is contemporaneous evidence and the delay is satisfactorily explained (Paras 5-6).
B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - School Record - The initial burden is on the applicant to prove the date of birth by producing reliable contemporaneous documents - Held that the petitioner failed to discharge this burden (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to correction of his date of birth in the school record after a long delay of over 30 years, and whether the impugned order rejecting his representation is sustainable.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned order dated 13/5/2010 is upheld. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Correction of date of birth in school record
- delay and laches
- burden of proof
- Secondary School Code Rule 26.4
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (03) 53
WRIT PETITION NO. 266 of 2011
D.B. BHOSALE, A.V. NIRGUDE
Mr.Pradeep Deshmukh (holding for Mr. H.A. Joshi) for petitioner, Mr.N.R. Shaikh, AGP for respondents
Azam Khan S/o. Dagd Khan Pathan
The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Education Department, The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, Head Master, Shri Nath High School, Paithan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging rejection of representation for correction of date of birth in school record.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 13/5/2010 and direction to respondents to correct his date of birth in school record.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 5/12/1953 instead of 5/12/1956 in school leaving certificate, and he discovered the error in 2009.
Previous Decisions
Education Officer (Secondary) rejected petitioner's representation on 13/5/2010.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to correction of date of birth in school record after a delay of over 30 years.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the representation is sustainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that under Rule 26.4 of Secondary School Code, 2006, even a student can apply for correction, and the amendment allows correction.
Respondents argued that the application was belated and lacked contemporaneous evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
A belated application for correction of date of birth, made after a long period of service and without contemporaneous evidence, cannot be entertained under Article 226. The burden of proof lies on the applicant to produce reliable evidence, and delay defeats the claim.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is presently working as Administrative Officer... He is due for retirement within next 7-8 months.
The petitioner contends, some time in 2009, he came across a school leaving certificate of his elder brother... showing the date of birth as 2/9/1954.
The application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 13/5/2010.
We are not inclined to entertain this petition.
Procedural History
Petitioner applied to Head Master for correction in 2009, who stated directions from Education Officer were needed. Petitioner applied to Education Officer on 3/2/2010, which was rejected on 13/5/2010. Petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 266 of 2011 in Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, which was heard and dismissed on 7/3/2011.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Secondary School Code, 2006: Rule 26.4
