2024:BHC-NAG:2551-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 7571 OF 20 23 PETITIONER: : Dr. Mohan S/o Bhauraoji Yeole, Aged 58, Occupation : Service, R/o 422, New Nandanwan Lay Out, Near Gurukul School, Nagpur Vs.

RESPONDENT S : 1 The Principal, Shri Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Dhanwantari Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur – 24

2 The Director, Ayush Govt. Dental College & Hospital Building, 4^th Floor, St. George Hospital Compound, P Demelo Road, Fort, Mumbai : 400 001

3 The State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

4 Bharatiya Vaidyak Samanvaya Samiti, A trust registered under Bombay Public Trusts Act, Bearing Registration No. F- 85(N), Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur through its Secretary Dhanwantari Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur - 24 -----------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. N.S. Khubalkar, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. P. D. Sharma, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 4. Mr. S.M. Ghodeswar, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Mr. Rohan Deo, Advocate to assist the Court.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ. DATED : 1^st MARCH, 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Heard Mr. Khubalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 4, Mr. S. M. Ghodeswar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Rohan Deo, learned counsel, who was asked to assist the Court.

3. The petition questions the communication dated 01/09/2023 (page 56) issued by the respondent No.1, intimating to the petitioner that he would be completing 60 years of age on 29/02/2024 and therefore, would be superannuating from the post of Professor and Head of Department held by him in Shri Ayurved Mahavidyalalya, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur run by the respondent No.4.

4. The contentions of Mr. Khubalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, are as under:

4.1. That the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 02/02/1966 and not 02/02/1964 as was recorded in the service record earlier.

4.2. Since the father of the petitioner was illiterate the birth of the petitioner was never reported to the authority under the Registration of Birth and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “RBD Act”) and therefore, there was no birth certificate issued under the RBD Act to the petitioner.

4.3. It is only on 14/02/2019, the petitioner came to know about his exact date of birth, which he claimed to be 02/02/1966 that an application under Section 13(3) of the RBD Act, came to be filed by him before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umrer, which came to be registered as Misc. Criminal Application No.43/2019 in which on 08/03/2019, by a judgment, a direction was issued to the Gram Sachiv, Grampanchayat, Sirsi, who was the non- applicant therein, to issue a birth certificate certifying that the date of birth of the petitioner was 02/02/1966 (page 39).

4.4. This declaration by the Magistrate under Section 13(3) of the RBD Act, was upon recording the evidence and, therefore, was in a judicial enquiry and was binding on all.

4.5. On the basis of the judgment by the learned Magistrate and according certificate, came to be issued to the petitioner under the RBD Act on 20/03/2019, certifying the date of birth of the petitioner as 02/02/1966 (Page 40).

4.6. Thereafter, an entry regarding the date of birth of the petitioner was taken in the school register of Loksewa Primary School, Sirsi (page 41), who thereupon issued a school leaving certificate on 23/03/2019 indicating that the date of birth of the petitioner was 02/02/1966.

4.7. On the basis of this school leaving certificate, recording the date of birth as 02/02/1966 an entry in the service book came to be recorded (page 82).

4.8. Though th