The Bombay High Court recently disposed of a writ petition after the petitioner, a college principal, admitted to a discrepancy in his date of birth as recorded in school documents. The judgment underscores the primacy of official school records in resolving disputes over personal details, particularly in service matters, and highlights the legal consequences of admitting incorrect information.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dr. Bhujangrao @ Santosh Thakre, a Principal in a college run by respondent no. 3 (the Management), filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 13.12.2025 passed by the Joint Director of Higher Education, Amravati Division. The order constituted a three-member committee to investigate allegations by respondent nos. 4 to 8 (Assistant Professors in the same college) that the petitioner’s date of birth was incorrectly recorded as 1.10.1964 instead of 1.10.1962, as per school records.
Key Facts
- The petitioner’s date of birth was recorded as 1.10.1962 in:
- Transfer Certificate (issued by the school where he studied from 8.7.1968 to 30.4.1975)
- School Leaving Certificate (issued by Madan Maharaj Vidyalaya Va Kamaldeep Kanishtha Mahavidyalaya for 10th Standard, passed in April 1978)
- SSC Board Certificate
- Respondent nos. 4 to 8 lodged a complaint with the Joint Director of Higher Education, who initially constituted a two-member committee. The committee’s report dated 5.4.2024 concluded that the petitioner’s date of birth was 1.10.1962.
- The Management (respondent no. 3), after conducting an enquiry, initially accepted the petitioner’s claim of 1.10.1964 but later faced renewed complaints from respondent nos. 4 to 8, leading to the impugned order dated 13.12.2025.
Procedural History
- Date Unknown: Respondent nos. 4 to 8 lodged a complaint regarding the petitioner’s date of birth.
- 5.4.2024: Two-member committee submitted a report confirming the petitioner’s date of birth as 1.10.1962.
- Date Unknown: Respondent no. 3 conducted an enquiry and accepted the petitioner’s claim of 1.10.1964.
- Date Unknown: Respondent nos. 4 to 8 approached respondent no. 1 again, leading to the constitution of a three-member committee.
- 13.12.2025: Impugned order passed by respondent no. 1, constituting the three-member committee.
- Date Unknown: Writ Petition No. 8151 of 2025 filed before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
- 26.3.2026: During the hearing, the petitioner tendered a Pursis (written statement) admitting his date of birth as 1.10.1962 and sought withdrawal of the petition.
Relief Sought
The petitioner initially sought:
- Quashing of the order dated 13.12.2025 passed by the Joint Director of Higher Education.
- A declaration that his date of birth was 1.10.1964, as claimed by him.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether school records, such as transfer certificates and school leaving certificates, could be treated as conclusive evidence of a person’s date of birth, overriding later claims or administrative records.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner’s counsel initially sought time to take instructions regarding the discrepancy in the date of birth.
- Later, the petitioner tendered a Pursis admitting that his date of birth was 1.10.1962, as recorded in school documents, and sought withdrawal of the petition.
For Respondent Nos. 4 to 8
- The counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 8 relied on school records, including the Transfer Certificate and School Leaving Certificate, which consistently recorded the petitioner’s date of birth as 1.10.1962.
- They argued that these documents, being contemporaneous records, should prevail over any subsequent claims made by the petitioner.
The Court's Analysis
The Court did not engage in a detailed legal analysis due to the petitioner’s admission and withdrawal of the petition. However, the judgment implicitly reinforces the principle that official school records carry significant evidentiary weight in resolving disputes over personal details, particularly in service matters.
The Court noted:
The petitioner tendered a Pursis admitting his date of birth as 1.10.1962, as recorded in his school records, and sought withdrawal of the petition.
This admission effectively resolved the dispute, as the petitioner accepted the correctness of the school records over his later claim.
The Verdict
The Court granted permission to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. The petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the following key outcomes:
- The petitioner’s admission in the Pursis that his date of birth is 1.10.1962 (as per school records) was recorded.
- The dispute regarding the petitioner’s date of birth was resolved in favour of respondent nos. 4 to 8, based on the conclusive evidence of school records.
What This Means For Similar Cases
School Records as Conclusive Evidence
- Practitioners must advise clients that school records, such as transfer certificates and school leaving certificates, are treated as primary evidence in disputes over personal details like date of birth.
- Courts are likely to give precedential weight to such documents, especially when they are contemporaneous and unchallenged at the time of issuance.
Implications for Service Law
- Employers and employees should ensure that personal details, particularly date of birth, are accurately recorded in official documents at the time of joining. Discrepancies discovered later may be difficult to rectify, as seen in this case.
- Departmental enquiries into such disputes should prioritize documentary evidence over oral claims or later administrative records.
Withdrawal of Petitions
- Legal strategy: If a party admits to incorrect claims during litigation, withdrawal of the petition may be the most prudent course of action to avoid adverse legal consequences.
- Costs and consequences: While the Court did not impose costs in this case, parties should be aware that admissions of incorrect claims could lead to adverse inferences in future proceedings.
