Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1450 (PAT)

Gayatri Singh v. State Of Bihar

2002-12-20

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2002
Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorary for quashing the communication dated 9-8-2001 (Annexure-15), whereby the State Government has informed the Superintendent of Nalanda Medial College Hospital that the date of birth of the petitioner be treated as 1-1-1945, which has been recorded in her Service Book. Further prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to enter her date of birth 1-1-1953 in place of 1-1-1945 in her Service Book. 2. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as the Auxilary Nurse Midwife in Nalanda Medical College Hospital (hereinafter referred to as Hospital) on 1-2-1978. In her Service Book prepared on 12-5-1981, her date of birth has been mentioned as 1-1-1945 and according to the petitioner, when she came to know about it in the year 1982, she filed application for its correction. The Superintendent of the Hospital by its letter dated 1-6-1983 (Annexure-2), made inquiry from the Registrar of the Bihar Nurses Registration Council as regards the qualification and date of birth of the petitioner. In the said letter, it was observed that in the registration certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner has not been mentioned. The Superintendent of the Hospital also wrote letter dated 1-6-1983 (Annexure-3) to the Registrar of Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar from where the petitioner claimed to have passed Praveshika examination in the year 1969, to furnish the date of birth of the petitioner. The superintendent of Hospital, by its Memo No. 1478 dated 8-7-1983 (Annexure-6), also directed her to get her age verified from the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer and to obtain his report in that regard. The Superintendent of the Hospital besides the aforesaid communications, also inquired form the Nursing Superintendent of the Kurji Holy Family Hospital, Patna as regards the date of birth of the petitioner. The Bihar Nurses Registration Council, by its communication dated 2-6-1983 (Annexure-4) informed to the Superintendent of the Hospital that according to their record, her age on 27-3-1974 was about 20 years. The Registrar of Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar, the Nursing Superintendent of A.N.M. School, Kurji Holy Family Hospital, Patna by letters dated 20-6-1983 (Annexure-5) and 15-7-1983 (Annexure-8) respectively, informed to the Superintendent of the Hospital that according to their records, the date of birth of the petitioner is 1-1-1953. The Registrar of Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar, the Nursing Superintendent of A.N.M. School, Kurji Holy Family Hospital, Patna by letters dated 20-6-1983 (Annexure-5) and 15-7-1983 (Annexure-8) respectively, informed to the Superintendent of the Hospital that according to their records, the date of birth of the petitioner is 1-1-1953. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Patna, by its letter dated 22-7-1983 (Annexure-9) addressed to the Superintendent of the Hospital informed the latter that on the examination of the petitioner, she was found to be aged about 31 years of age on 22-7-1983. It is the grievance of the petitioner that notwithstanding overwhelming materials establishing that her date of birth is 1-1-1953, no correction was made and the Superintendent of the Hospital by its letter dated 25-9-2000 (Annexure-10), again inquired from the Registrar of Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar about the date of birth of the petitioner, The Registrar of Hindi Vidyapith again wrote to the Superintendent of the Hospital and certified that the date of birth of the petitioner is 1-1-1953. Thereafter, the Superintendent of the Hospital by its letter dated 18-6-2001 (Annexure-12), sought guidance from the Director-in-chief, Health Service on the issue. The aforesaid communication of the Superintendent of the Hospital was processed in the office of the Director-in-Chief and by letter dated 7-7-2001 (Annexure-13), the Superintendent of the hospital was directed to be present in the office along with the connected files and records on 10-7-2001. The Superintendent of the Hospital, as directed, produced the files and records and lateron, by letter dated 14-7-2001 (Annexure-14), sent the photostat copies of the letters. Ultimately, by the impugned order dated 9-8-2001 (Annexure-15), the Superintendent of the Hospital has been informed that the date of birth of the petitioner be treated as 1-1-1945, which has been recorded in her Service Book. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which, the assertions of the petitioner that her date of birth was inquired from the Bihar Nurses Registration Council, Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar, the Nursing Superintendent of Holy Family Hospital, Kurji and the assessment of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer certifying her date of birth as 1-1-1953 or the age in conformity with her claim, have not been denied. However, it has been stated that the Service Book of the petitioner records her educational qualification to be Praveshika pass and date of birth 1-1-1945 and the said Service Book not only contains the signature of the petitioner but also her finger impressions. It has also been averred that the State . Government by its letter dated 6-10-2001 (Annexure-C), wrote to the Superintendent of the Hospital to constitute a Medical Board for assessing the age of the petitioner and although such a Medical Board was constituted but the petitioner did not appear before the same. 4. Mr. Vyas Muni Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that overwhelming materials collected at the instance of the respondents themselves, clearly show that the date of birth of the petitioner is 1-1-1953 and hence, the impugned order treating her date of birth to be 1-1-1945, is absolutely illegal and fit to be set aside. 5. Mr. Arup Kumar Choudhary, JC to AAG II, however, submits that in the Service Book prepared as back as on 12-5-1981, the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 1 -1-1945 and as such, the same is not fit to be altered at the belated stage. 6. Having appreciated the rival submissions, I find substance in the submission of Shri Singh. Petitioner was appointed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife on 1-2-1978. Her Service Book was prepared for the first time on 12-5-1981 in which her educational qualification has been shown to be Praveshika pass and the date of birth 1-1-1945. The petitioner filed the application for its correction in the year 1982. The Superintendent of the Hospital made inquiries from he Registrar of Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar from where the petitioner had passed Praveshika examination, the Bihar Nurses Registration Council with which the petitioner was registered, A.N.M. School, Kurji Holy Family Hospital, Patna from where she had undertaken training of nurse and all of them have informed to the Superintendent of the Hospital in the year 1983 itself that the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 1-1-1953 in their records. Not only this, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer who examined the petitioner on 22-7-1983, found her age to be about 31 years. The respondents have not stated tat these documents are forged or any reason to discredit them. Not only this, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer who examined the petitioner on 22-7-1983, found her age to be about 31 years. The respondents have not stated tat these documents are forged or any reason to discredit them. All these documents clearly lead to one conclusion that the date of birth of the petitioner is 1-1-1953. 7. True it is that the petitioner has come to this Court at a belated stage. It is equally true that entries in regard to the date of birth is not fit to be tinkered at the fag end of the service but here in the present case, I find that the petitioner raised objection in regard to the entry of her date of birth in the year 1982 and all the reports of the authorities support the claim of the petitioner that her date of birth is 1-1-1953. In the face of those reports, the plea of the petitioner that she believed that her date of birth shall be corrected, does not seem to be unreasonable. Not only this for the first time petitioner by the impugned order dated 9-8-2000 was informed that her date of birth shall be treated as 1-1-1945 and immediately thereafter she had filed the writ application on 24-9-2001. Hence, I am not inclined to dismiss the writ application on the ground urged by the respondents. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents further submits that the petitioner was asked to appear before the Medical Board and she having not appeared in the same, her date of birth, as recorded in the Service Book, is not fit to be altered. I do not find any substance in this submission of the learned counsel. As stated earlier, besides the reports of other authorities petitioner was examined by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer on 22-7-1983 and he had also assessed the age of the petitioner to be 31 years which is in conformity with her claim. Not only this, the impugned order, declining correction in the date of birth, was passed on 9-8-2001 and the Superintendent of the Hospital was asked to constitute the Medical Board for examination of the petitioner later on by letter dated 6-10-2001. According to the respondents the petitioner did not appear before the Medical Board so constituted and this disentitles her the relief claimed in the present application. According to the respondents the petitioner did not appear before the Medical Board so constituted and this disentitles her the relief claimed in the present application. In my opinion, the action of the respondents cannot be validated on account of the subsequent act of the petitioner in not appearing before the Medical Board. As observed earlier, the impugned order has been passed on 9-8-2001 whereas the direction to the Superintendent of the hospital to constitute the Medical Board was issued on 6-10-2001. 9. In the result, this writ application is allowed. Let a writ in the nature of certiorary be issues quashing the order dated 9-8-2001 (Annexure-15) and further a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to treat the date of birth of the petitioner to be 1-1-1953. Petitioner shall be entitled to the casts of this litigation, which is assessed at Rs. 250 only.