Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 400 (PAT)

Shyam Narayan Sharma v. State Of Bihar

2001-05-02

AFTAB ALAM

body2001
Judgment 1. The controversy in this case relates to the petitioners date of birth. The petitioner was appointed as a police constable on 15.6.1964. Though now it is claimed on behalf of the petitioner that before his appointment he had passed the matriculation examination held in February, 1963 and had also obtained his matriculation certificate, dated 13.6.1963, the matriculation certificate was evidently not produced at the time of his appointment. As a result, in the service book his date of birth was entered on the basis of his verbal statement made at the time of his appointment that he was twenty one years of age. On that basis his year of birth was entered as 1943. Later, it was found that some alteration was made in that entry by over-writing and interpolation and the date of birth was changed to 20.1.1945. The change which is clearly by over writing does not bear any initials or the signature of the authority making the change. 2. The date of birth (20.1.1945) introduced later in the service book tallies with the date of birth as shown in the petitioners matriculation certificate where in the space provided for date of birth 20.1.1945 is recorded. Under what circumstances the petitioner was prevented from producing his matriculation certificate at the time of his appointment is not stated anywhere. 3. It appears that the matriculation certificate came to light for the first time in 1971 when the petitioner was considered for being promoted to the post of literate constable. But at that stage it was used only for his academic qualification and not for the purpose of his date of birth. 4. On 16.5.2000 the petitioner was intimated in writing that his year of birth being 1943, he will superannuate from service on attaining the age of 58 years on 30.6.2001. It was at that stage that the petitioner made a formal application for correcting his date of birth as entered in the service book on the basis of his matriculation certificate. The respondent authorities rejected the petitioners request for making any change in his date of birth by order, dated 1.2.2001 and the petitioner has then come to this court challenging that order and seeking appropriate direction to the respondent authorities. 5. The respondent authorities rejected the petitioners request for making any change in his date of birth by order, dated 1.2.2001 and the petitioner has then come to this court challenging that order and seeking appropriate direction to the respondent authorities. 5. Speaking for myself, I see no infirmity in the order passed by the respondent authorities refusing to make any correction in the petitioners date of birth as entered in his service book, just a year before his superannuation. But learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the matriculation certificate which should form the basis of determining the date of birth and in support of his submissions placed reliance upon a bench decision of this court in Siya Ram Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 1995 (1) P.L.J.R. 691. The decision relied upon by the counsel seems to fully apply to the case of the petitioner. 6. Mr. Sanjay Singh also admitted that but for the fact that in the case in hand an attempt was made to change the entry in the service book by over writing, there was no feature of distinction between the case in hand and the reported decision. In my view, the distinction pointed out by Mr. Singh is not of such a nature as to disentitle the petitioner from relying upon the earlier bench decision of this court. 7. On the basis of the earlier decision of this court in Siya Ram Singh, this writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 1.2.2001 passed by the Supdt. of Police (B) Special Branch, Bihar, 1 Patna as contained in Annexure 7 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the competent authority to re-determine the petitioners date of birth on the basis of his matriculation certificate and in the light of the decision of this court in the case of Siya Ram Singh. It will be open to the concerned authority to verify the genuineness of the matriculation certificate by asking for a report from the Bihar School Examination Board, the authority which issued the certificate. The Board may also be asked to indicate as to the petitioners date of birth as entered in the Boards record. 8. In the result, this writ petition is allowed subject to the observations and directions made above.