Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1094 (PAT)

Bisheshwar Nath Prasad v. Union Of India

2002-10-08

NAGENDRA RAI, R.S.GARG

body2002
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.8.2002 passed by the learned single judge dismissing the writ application filed by the appellant for quashing the order by which he has been ordered to superannuate with effect from 31.8.2002 by treating his date of birth as 23rd August, 1945 and to treat his date of birth as 13th November, 1948. 3. The facts which are not in dispute are that the appellant was appointed as Cadet in Xth Battalion (BMP) on 23.8.1966. He served there till 31.3.1967. The said Battalion merged in CRPF on 1.4.1967 and thereafter he was appointed as constable in CRPF with effect from the said date. In the Service Book his date of birth was mentioned as 23rd August, 1945, according to which he had to retire on 31st August, 2002. 4. The case of the appellant is that he passed Matriculation Examination in 1966 and his date of birth mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate is 13th November, 1948 but in the Service book wrong entry was made as 23rd August, 1945. In the year 1990, the Principal, Central Training College-1, C.R.P.F., Neemuch issued noticed calling upon the appellant to make a representation for correction of his date of birth and the appellant applied for correction on the basis of Matriculation Certificate. Thereafter, a communication was made to appellant on the basis of the order passed by the I.G., C.R.P.F. that his claim with regard to change of date of birth has been accepted and his date of birth has been fixed as 13th November, 1948. Further case of the appellant is that once in 1990 correction was made in the date of birth, then the authority was not justified in treating his date of birth as 23rd August, 1945 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The documents, as contained in Annexures-1 and 2 to this appeal, do show that the authorities also treated his date of birth as 13th November, 1948 and not 23rd August, 1945 and the decision to superannuate him treating his date of birth as 23rd August, 1945 is against the records maintained in the office. 5. The documents, as contained in Annexures-1 and 2 to this appeal, do show that the authorities also treated his date of birth as 13th November, 1948 and not 23rd August, 1945 and the decision to superannuate him treating his date of birth as 23rd August, 1945 is against the records maintained in the office. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted same very points which were agitated before the learned single judge, namely, once the correction was made in 1990 and 13th November, 1948 was accepted as his date of birth, then asking the appellant to retire on the basis of earlier date of birth i.e. 23rd August, 1945 is impermissible in law. It is further submitted that the records maintained in the office show that his date of birth is 13th November, 1948 and not 23rd August, 1945 and as such the order is contary to the records maintained in the office. 6. We are unable to agree with both the submissions urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant. If the date of birth of the appellant is treated as 13th November, 1948, then he would not have been appointed in BMP as he was below 18 years of age at the time of appointment which was minimum age limit prescribed for appointment. Matriculation Certificate did not see the light of the day till 2002. Even if it is accepted to be a valid document, then the appellant is guilty of suppression as he did not produce the same at the initial stage of recruitment to get the benefit. If he had produced the Certificate at the time of entry into the service, then he would not have been appointed on the post by the authorities. 7. The sheet-anchor of the case of the appellant is that in 1990 the authorities corrected the date of birth on the basis of Matriculation Certificate. 8. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, which is on the record of this case, shows that the I.G., C.R.P.F. is the competent authority to allow correction of date of birth. The prayer made on behalf of the appellant after 21 years of service in 1990 was rejected by him, but the Principal, C.T.C. - 1, Neemuch without authority of law made a communication mentioning therein that the I.G., C.R.P.F. has accepted the prayer for alteration of date of birth. The prayer made on behalf of the appellant after 21 years of service in 1990 was rejected by him, but the Principal, C.T.C. - 1, Neemuch without authority of law made a communication mentioning therein that the I.G., C.R.P.F. has accepted the prayer for alteration of date of birth. Thus, the communication of the Principal of the College on which the appellant relies, does not contain correct fact. It is a case of manipulation for helping the appellant as no order was passed by any competent authority accepting his date of birth as 1948. Thus, the documents on which the appellant relies does not support his case. 9. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.