Bombay High Court
SALLAUDDIN MAKTUM SAYYEDversusSTATE OF MAHA. THR. SEC. SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPT. AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition fails and is dismissed due to undue delay and lack of merit in correcting the date of birth.
Summary
The petitioner, Sallauddin Maktum Sayyed, sought a correction of his date of birth in his service records from 1 June 1965 to 5 November 1967, alleging a clerical error. He filed an application for correction in August 2010, which the employer (Respondent No.3) rejected on the ground that no supporting documents were produced. After no action was taken, the petitioner obtained a declaration of the corrected date of birth from a Magistrate's Court in May 2023, shortly before his superannuation in 2024, and then filed the present writ petition. The respondents argued that the petition was barred by a five‑year limitation and that the corrected date would imply the petitioner entered first standard at the implausible age of 3.8 years. The High Court held that the delay was unreasonable, the correction was sought at the fag end of his service, and there was no ground for interference, consequently dismissing the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a correction of date of birth in service records can be granted despite a delay exceeding five years.
- Whether the corrected date of birth would render the petitioner’s admission to first standard implausible, affecting the validity of the correction.
- Whether the court can intervene in an administrative decision concerning correction of personal particulars at the fag end of the petitioner’s service.
Subjects
- date of birth correction
- service record
- statutory limitation
- delay
- superannuation
- writ petition
- administrative decision
Judgment
2026:BHC-KOL:8441-DB
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 29 th
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 1 st June, 1965
Jamadar-SL 1 of 3
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 5 th
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 11 th 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 16 th 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
Checking your session…