MANORAMA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/ order/ direction upon the respondents to indicate/mention the date of birth of the petitioner in praveshika certificate, which is equivalent to matriculation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, certificate issued by the respondent no.3 is without mentioning the date of birth of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.5 has asked the petitioner to furnish the educational certificate so as to submit a proof with regard to the age of the petitioner. Annexure -5 is the order, issued by the respondent no.5, asking the petitioner to produce the said certificate.

(2.) ON receipt of the said office order, the petitioner moved respondent no.3 with a request to issue certificate incorporating the date of birth. Since it was declined by the respondent no.3, the petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to issue necessary direction to the respondent no.3 for issuance of certificate incorporating the date of birth.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 submitted that their record does not indicate the name of the petitioner in admission register and therefore, they are not in a position to certify about the date of birth of the petitioner.