GOBARDHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 not to superannuate the petitioner on the 31st March, 1983 and to correct the petitioner's date of birth in the service book as 10th September, 1928. The date of birth recorded in the service book was 12th of March, 1925. The petitioner wants it to be corrected as 10th September, 1928. The application arises in the circumstances mentioned hereinafter.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed Sub-Inspector of Schools on the 4th October, 1956. His case is that he was appointed to the post on the basis of an affidavit (Annexure 1) sworn by the petitioner's father. In the affidavit, it had been declared that the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the school and in the Matriculation certificate was 12th of March, 1925, but the actual date of birth of the petitioner, Gobardhan Singh, was 10th September, 1928. The petitioner's averment is that on the basis of the affidavit, he was appointed. Had the affidavit not been accepted, the petitioner would have been over-age and could not have been appointed. The petitioner passed the Bachelor of Arts Examination in 1951 and Diploma in Education in 1956. The petitioner has also averred that he was working as a teacher in the Karpi High School from January, 1949 to the 30th April 1952. He has not, however, disclosed his date of birth recorded in the, school in which he was serving.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that in 1976, he filed a representation for correction of the date of birth recorded in his service book. The representation has not been produced before us. Our attention has been drawn to Annexure 5 which shows that on the 4th February, 1976 the Deputy Director of Education wrote to the District Education Officer, Palamau, to re-construct the petitioner's service book and to inform the directorate about it. There is, however, no order for correction of the date of birth in the service book. It is, therefore, difficult for us to accept that the petitioner had filed any representation in 1976 to correct the date of birth mentioned in his service book. The petitioner woke up for the first time in 1982. In his application (Annexure 6/A) addressed to the Director of Primary Education, the petitioner stated in unmistakable terms that he could not write earlier for correction of his date of birth for the reasons mentioned therein. Be that as it may, the question is whether the petitioner has made out adequate ground for correction of his date of birth.