Murli Manohar Tiwary v. State of Bihar — 1986 DIGILAW 345 (PAT)

JUDGMENT : N. P. Singh, J.–Petitioner has filed this application for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to correct the entry in the service book of the petitioner relating to his date of birth on basis of his matriculation certificate and for quashing different ORDER :s passed by the respondents authorities rejecting the request of the petitioner for the said correction. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Literate Constable in the year 1950. In the service book, 1927 was mentioned as the year of birth of the petitioner. In February, 1962, petitioner appeared and passed the Matriculation Examination. In the matriculation certificate 6.1.1932 was mentioned as the date of birth of the petitioner. 3. In the year 1976, a decision was taken by the State Government to give an opportunity to the employees of the Police Department to get the dates of their birth mentioned in their service books to be corrected with reference to the dates of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificates. The aforesaid decision was communicated to the Inspector General of Police, Bihar, by a fetter dated 26.2.1976, issued by the Home (Police) Department. Pursuant to that decision petitioner filed an application on 26.7.1976 for correction of his date of birth mentioned in his service-book with reference to the date of birth mentioned in his matriculation certificate. That request was rejected by the authorities on the ground that petitioner had passed the Matriculation Examination while in service and as such the aforesaid decision of the State Government was not applicable to the petitioner. 4. On behalf of the petitioner it was urged that once a decision has been taken by the State Government to correct the entries in the service books of the different employees of the Police Department with reference to the date of birth mentioned in their matriculation certificates, the claim of the petitioner cannot be ignored merely on the ground that he has passed the Matriculation Examination after having joined the service. According to the petitioner, that will amount to discrimination without there being any rational basis for the same. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the said counter affidavit, it has been stated that at the time of appointment in the year 1950 petitioner himself gave 1927 as the year of his birth, on the basis of which entry was made in his Service Book. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the said counter affidavit, it has been stated that at the time of appointment in the year 1950 petitioner himself gave 1927 as the year of his birth, on the basis of which entry was made in his Service Book. It has been asserted that petitioner has signed the said entry and has also given his thumb impression before the Commandant, R. P. F. It has been stated that the decision of the State Government in respect of correction of the dates of birth mentioned in the service books with reference to the matriculation certificates was applicable only to person who had passed the Matriculation Examination before their appointment. 6. In view of the stand taken by the respondents, the only question which has to be answered is as to whether the decision of the State Government regarding correction of the dates of birth mentioned in the service books of the police officers with reference to their matriculation certificates is applicable even to persons who have passed the Matriculation Examination after their appointment. From a bare reference to the communication dated 26.2.1976 it shall appear the State Government had received complaints from different police officers that, at the time of their a appointment entries in respect of the dates of birth were not made on the basis of the matriculation certificates, specially in cases of such officer who having passed the Matriculation Examination were appointed as Constable or Literate Constable. It further says that the State Government had taken a decision that in respect of police officers whose dates of birth have not been entered in the service books on the basis of the matriculation certificates, correction be made after getting their matriculation certificates verified from the concerned Universities. It further says that the State Government had taken a decision that in respect of police officers whose dates of birth have not been entered in the service books on the basis of the matriculation certificates, correction be made after getting their matriculation certificates verified from the concerned Universities. The relevant part is as follows :– ^^ljdkj ds le{k vkj{kh inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds ,sls vusd ekeys izkIr gks jgs gS ftueas bu yksxksa dh izFke fu;qfDr ds le; lsok&iqfLr esa esfVªdqys’ku izeku&i= ds vuqlkj tUe&frfFk ntZ ugh dh x;h gSA^^ In my view, in the aforesaid decision of the State Government itself, on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner, it has been clearly stated that corrections in the service books have to be made only in respect of such police officers whose dates of birth in the service books have not been entered is accordance with their matriculation certificates, at the time of their appointment. In other words, the aforesaid benefit is available only to persons who had passed the Matriculation Examination before their appointment but the dates of birth entered in the service book were different than what had been mentioned in the matriculation certificates. In my opinion, if the aforesaid decision is made applicable even to the persons who have passed the Matriculation Examination while in service, in many cases, it shall lead to absurd results. For example, a person who was Non-Matriculate on the date of his appointment may later appear at the Matriculation or an equivalent Examination, and may give a date of his choice. On the basis or that matriculation certificate, later he can claim that his date of birth in the service book be corrected. To avoid such situation, in the decision of the State Government itself, it was specifically mentioned that corrections are, to made only in respect of such police officers, whose dates of birth in the service books at the time of their appointment were not entered in accordance with their matriculation certificates. 7. To avoid such situation, in the decision of the State Government itself, it was specifically mentioned that corrections are, to made only in respect of such police officers, whose dates of birth in the service books at the time of their appointment were not entered in accordance with their matriculation certificates. 7. It may be pointed out that the aforesaid communication dated 26.2.1976 had prescribed a time limit up to February, 1977 before which applications for corrections had to be filed but this Court in several pronouncements had held that once the decision to correct the service book has been taken by the State Government, the benefit thereof cannot be denied persons who failed to make applications for correction within the period mentioned in that communication. In that view of the matter, applications filed even after, February, 1977, have to be entertained. If the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is accepted, it will lead to a never ending process of correction in the service book. Pushed to the logical consequence, persons who have passed the Matriculation Examination, even after February, 1977, may put forward their claim for correction in their service books with reference to their matriculation certificates. 8. On a plain reading of the decision of the State Government, it is clear that the benefit of decision is available to such police officers who had passed the Matriculation Examination before their appointment and not to those who have passed the said examination after their appointment. As the petitioner had passed the Matriculation Examination after the appointment, his claim for correction has rightly been rejected by the respondents-authorities. 9. This writ application, accordingly, fails and it is dismissed. But, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no ORDER :as to costs. Application dismissed. Yadunath Sharan Singh, J.–I agree.