SIDHESHWAR PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 10382 of 1999 raises a grievance in this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, with respect to the order dated 1.3.2005, whereby his writ petition has been dismissed and the order of the Respondent authorities, restoring 11.5.1942 to be his date of birth, has been upheld.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. The Appellant had appeared at the matriculation examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board held in February 1963, the certificate was issued on 25.6.1963, and the same recorded 3.4.1948 to be his date of birth. The Appellant joined the Bihar Military. Police-V as a Constable on 14.5.1964. It appears that he had not furnished copy of his matriculation certificate at the time of entry into service, as a result of which the matter was referred to the concerned Civil Surgeon who determined 22 years of age at the time of entry into service and the authorities, therefore, allotted 11.5.1942 to be his date of birth which had accordingly been recorded in his service record at the time of entry into service. The Appellant thereafter submitted his representation for correction of his date of birth so that It is put it in line with the entry made in his matriculation certificate. The, same was allowed by the appropriate authorities by order dated 20.5.1967 (Annexure-3), whereby 11.5.1942 was substituted by 3.4.1948 as his date of birth. This was followed by the order dated 6.7.1967 (Annexure-4), whereby it was ordered that in view of the corrected date of birth, he was short by 694 days at the time of entry into service. It was, therefore, ordered that the period of 694 days "...will be treated as disqualifying service..." This was followed by the order dated 21.2.1991 (Annexure-5 herein), issued by the appropriate authority, wherein it was stated that 11.5.1942 had been recorded as the Petitioner's date of birth in the service record at the time of entry into service which is credible, because 3.4.1948 recorded as his date of birth in the matriculation certificate leads to the position that he had entered into service at the age of sixteen years which is unacceptable to the State Government. He, therefore, restored 11.5.1942 to be his date of birth, as a result of which he superannuated with effect from 1.6.2000, and impugned herein. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.2.1991 (Annexure-5 herein), the Appellant submitted his representation which was rejected by the competent authority by order dated 27.9.1999, and the said order dated 21.2.1991 was upheld. Consequently, 11.5.1942 was treated to be his date of birth leading to the present writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

(3.) We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of Learned Counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the Appellant's matriculation certificate was issued by the Board on 25.6.1963, whereas he entered into service on 14.5.1964. It was, therefore, incumbent on him to produce the matriculation certification in proof of his date of birth as well as educational qualifications. It appears that the same was not done. On account of non-production of the matriculation certificate, the authorities had referred the matter to the concerned Civil Surgeon for medical examination who determined 22 years to be his age at the time of entry into service. The authorities accepted the medical report, and allotted 11.5.1942 to be his date of birth which was recorded in the Appellant's service record. The subsequent developments have been indicated hereinabove.