(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court in the discretionary and equitable writ jurisdiction for rectification of his Date of Birth from 1.10.1950 to 10.8.1955. This writ petition has been filed in the year 2009 when the petitioner is approaching his age of superannuation. The foundation of his claim is a matriculation certificate in which the petitioner's Date of Birth is mentioned as 10.8.1955. The petitioner has placed reliance upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of 'Kamta Pandey v. BCCL and Ors., 2007 3 JCR 681'.
(2.) The said decision emphasises the relevance of the Date of Birth recorded in the matriculation certificate, but on the facts of the present case, I do not find that decision to be applicable because admittedly the petitioner was employed in the Central Coal Fields Limited which is a Government undertaking on 17.3.1972. If the Date of Birth espoused by the petitioner is accepted to be correct then on the date of appointment the petitioner would have been less than 18 years of age.
(3.) It appears to be quite apparent that the petitioner in order to get that employment at that time misrepresented his Date of Birth as 1.10.1950 which was accordingly recorded in the service record and the employment was granted. After obtaining employment and serving for some time, the petitioner moved for rectification of the Date of Birth on the basis of matriculation certificate which though obtained earlier but was filed later, meaning thereby which was withheld, for obvious reason, at the time of obtaining employment. The petitioner's contention that the matriculation certificate was obtained later is an eye wash. Marks sheets are supplied immediately after matriculation result and marks sheet also contain the Date of Birth. Therefore, this excuse of obtaining matriculation certificate later is just to cover-up the earlier misconduct of the petitioner in giving wrong Date of Birth for the purpose of obtaining employment before he became eligible age-wise.