Bombay HC imposes Rs 25000 cost on Educational Institution clerk who attempted to hoodwink the Court by correcting his date of birth

Educator

New member


Bombay High Court: In the present petition, petitioner prays that Respondent 5 should grant permission to correct petitioner’s date of birth as 02-06-1972, in his service book. The Division Bench of Ravindra V. Ghuge* and Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ., stated that if it was assumed that petitioner’s date of birth was 02-06-1972, it would mean that petitioner had passed his 10th Standard in March/April 1984 at the age of 11 years and 9 months, which would mean that he was one-year-old in the 1st Standard in school. The Court dismissed the writ petition with a cost of Rs 25,000, which was to be deducted from petitioner’s salary.

Petitioner joined Employment with Respondent 6 Institution as a Clerk on 16-06-1997 and his date of birth was entered in the service book as 02-06-1968. Petitioner, after 27 years in service, desired that his date of birth should be changed to 02-06-1972, thereby making him 4 years younger.

The Court noted that petitioner’s school record indicated his date of birth as 02-06-1968 and he took admission in the ‘late Pandurang Sakharam Patil Vidyalaya Tambave, Taluka Walwa, District Sangli’ which was operated by the Kasegaon Shikshan Sanstha, Kasegaon, on 23-06-1981. He left the school on 31-05-1984, after passing his 10th Standard.

The Court stated that if it was assumed that petitioner’s date of birth was 02-06-1972, it would mean that petitioner had passed his 10th Standard in March/April 1984 at the age of 11 years and 9 months, which would mean that he was admitted in the 1st Standard in school, in June 1973 when he was one year old.

The Court opined that it had to ensure that litigants who attempted to hoodwink the Court, should realize that they should not file chance cases for invoking the Writ Jurisdiction of the Court. The Court stated that petitioner was working as a Clerk in an Educational Institution, and he should not carry the impression that he could get away with an order by hoodwinking the Court.

The Court therefore dismissed the present writ petition with cost of Rs 25,000 and directed the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli to inform the Management of Respondents 6 and 7, to ensure that Rs 25,000 was deducted from petitioner’s salary and was deposited in this Court, within 45 days from the date of the present order and the amount should be transferred by the Registry of this Court to the Kirtikar Law Library.

The Court noted that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Miraj passed an order dated 22-02-2024 and corrected petitioner’s date of birth and therefore, directed the District Collector, Sangli to issue notice to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tasgaon and call for an explanation, as to how he could record the date of birth as 02-06-1972, as it would put petitioner in the 1st Standard in the school at the age of one year, and pass the 10th Standard at the age of 11 years and 9 months. The Court left it to the District Collector, Sangli to take an appropriate decision in the present case.

[Vijay Shivaji Fasale v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 17441 of 2024, decided on 05-12-2024]

*Judgment authored by: Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge



Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the Petitioner: Umesh Pawar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

For the Respondents: P.P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. a/w P.J. Deshpande, AGP for the Respondent-State.

The post appeared first on .
 
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock