SAHEBRAO CHANDRASING DEOREversusTHE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER PANCHAYAT SAMITI AND ORS

                                                              501_WP_15870_2025.DOC



Prasad

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 15870 OF 2025

Sahebrao Chandrasing Deore                                     ...Petitioner
      Versus
The Block Education Officer Panchayat Samiti & Ors.            ...Respondents

                                       _______

Mr. Avinash Avhad a/w Purva Pradhan, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP for Respondent – State.
Mr. Rohit Sakhdeo for Respondent No.3.
                                       _______

                             CORAM:        G. S. KULKARNI &
                                           DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

                             DATE:         23rd SEPTEMBER 2026

P.C.

1.       By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondents to correct his date of birth in his

service book to 1st June 1970.


2.       The Petitioner, a primary teacher in the Zilla Parishad, Nashik, states that

his date of birth is 1st June 1970, as documented in his birth certificate, school

leaving certificate, S.S.C. certificate, PAN card, and driving licence. He further

states that his service book initially recorded the same date. In August 2023, he

discovered that the entry had been altered to read 1 st June 1969. On 29th August

2023, he filed a complaint to the Panchayat Samiti Malegaon. Upon observing the

tampering with the birth date, the Block Education Officer, Malegaon, submitted a


                                   Page 1 of 3
                                                              501_WP_15870_2025.DOC



proposal dated 20th September 2023 for correction of the date of birth.

Subsequently, by communication dated 2 nd November 2023, Respondent No. 2,

the Education Officer (Primary), declined the proposal on the sole ground that,

pursuant to Rule 38(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of

Service) Rules, 1981, an application to amend the recorded date of birth filed after

five years from the date of entry into service generally should not be entertained.

Thereafter, the Block Development Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Malegaon,

submitted a new proposal dated 6 th December 2023, accompanied by the

Petitioner’s supporting documents. Following a further complaint from the

Petitioner, Respondent No. 2 issued a notice dated 10 th March 2025. The notice

scheduled a hearing for 18th March 2025 and instructed the relevant officials to

attend with the original service book. No decision has been taken since.


3.     Heard Mr Avinash Avhad, learned counsel for the Petitioner; Mr Rohit

Sakhadeo, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2; and Ms Priyanka Chavan,

learned AGP for Respondent No. 3 – State, and perused the record with their

assistance.


4.     Respondent No. 2’s notice dated 10 th March 2025, includes two

photocopies of the initial page of the Petitioner’s service book. One shows his date

of birth as 1st June 1970, while the other shows that the date has been overwritten

to read 1st June 1969. Additionally, the notice records that each of the five

documents produced by the Petitioner shows 1 st June 1970. Therefore, the

Petitioner is not submitting a belated request to amend the date of birth recorded at




                                  Page 2 of 3
                                                                                                 501_WP_15870_2025.DOC



                                the time of his entry into service. His contention is that the original entry was

                                subsequently altered. The communication dated 2nd November 2023 does not

                                directly address this issue; instead, it relies solely on the five-year limitation period

                                and treats the matter as a request to modify the original entry. Whether the original

                                entry was tampered with, and the implications if it was, are factual questions. The

                                competent authority is responsible for making this determination after examining

                                the original service book. We are told that the Respondent No. 2 has commenced

                                this process by scheduling a hearing.


                                5.     In the circumstances, the following order is passed:


                                       (a) Respondent No. 2, the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad,

                                       Nashik / the competent authority is directed to decide the proposal dated

                                       6th December 2023 and the Petitioner’s complaint dated 10 th March 2025

                                       within a period of six weeks from today.

                                       (b) Respondent No. 2 shall decide the matter without being influenced by

                                       the communication dated 2nd November 2023 from the Education Officer

                                       (Primary).

                                       (c) The decision shall be communicated to the Petitioner within one week

                                       of its being made.

                                6.     All contentions of the parties are kept open.


                                7.     The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.



                                (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)                                    (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)


             Digitally signed
             by PRASAD
PRASAD       RAJENDRASING
RAJENDRASING RAJPUT
RAJPUT       Date:
             2026.09.28
             18:22:55 +0530
                                                                    Page 3 of 3