21-WP-12770-2023(C).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12770 OF 2023 Sallauddin Maktum Sayyed ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents —————— Mr. Y. B. Lengare (through V.C.) a/w Mr. Rutik Kashid, for the Petitioner. Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 -State. —————— CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 02, 2026. P. C. : 1. By the present Petition, the challenge is to the order dated 29th May, 2023 passed by the Respondent No.2, declining the Petitioner's request to correct the date of birth, firstly on the ground that the corrected date of birth would imply that at the age of 3.8 years, the Petitioner was admitted to the 1st standard and secondly, that the application for correction of the date of birth was not filed within a period of five years. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner's date of birth was wrongly recorded as 1st June, 1965 Jamadar-SL 1 of 3 2026:BHC-KOL:8441-DB 21-WP-12770-2023(C).doc and thereafter, by an application dated 16th August, 2010, the Petitioner had requested the Respondent No.3 to correct his date of birth as 5th November, 1967. He would submit that though the application was made, there was no implementation of the correction of the date of birth, and in 2023, he approached the Court of the Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of seeking a declaration of the Petitioner's date of birth as 5th November, 1967 which order was passed on 11th May, 2023. He submits that it was due to inaction of the Respondent that the correct date of birth was not recorded in the service record, though an application was made in the year 2010. 3. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. 4. The Petitioner joined the services of the Respondent No.3 - institution in the year 2008 and the present Petition has been filed in the year 2023. Upon a query by this Court, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has superannuated in the year 2024. Though it is sought to be contended that an application was moved in the year 2010, in the absence of any action on the said application, it was expected of the Petitioner to approach the Court and seek necessary relief which has not been done in the present case. 5. Perusal of the application dated 16th August, 2010 would indicate that in response thereto on 31st August, 2010, the Respondent management had informed the Petitioner that there was no document Jamadar-SL 2 of 3 21-WP-12770-2023(C).doc which had been produced in support of his application for change of date of birth. It is only in the year 2023 that the Petitioner approached the Magistrate's Court and obtained a declaration which was at the fag end of his service tenure. 6. The Respondent No.2 has rightly considered the delay in seeking the correction of the date of birth and has rejected the application. There is no warrant for interference as correction of date of birth is sought at fag end of tenure. 7. Resultantly, the Petition fails and stands dismissed. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] Jamadar-SL 3 of 3