Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1189 (PAT)

Kedar Mahto v. State Of Bihar

2003-11-19

NARAYAN ROY

body2003
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ application, the petitioner has called upon this court under Article 226 of the Constitution to decide his date of birth. 3. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 1.3.1948, whereas, according to the respondents, his date of birth as entered in the service book is 1.3.1945 and the petitioner by now has superannuated. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the date of birth of the petitioner was changed in the service book from 1.3.1948 to 1.3.1945 even without notice to him and the respondents, accordingly, issued Annexure 3 saying that the petitioner stood superannuated from 28.2.2003. 5. According to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that the authorities having found certain tampering marks in the date of birth of the petitioner in the service book made the same as 1.3.1945 with reference to leave account chart, where his date of birth has been mentioned as 1.3.1945 and thereafter opportunities were given to the petitioner to produce the required testimonials showing his date of birth as 1.3.11948. 6. But the petitioner failed to do so, and, accordingly order, as contained in Annexure 3 was issued. 7. Ex facie, it appears from the extract of the service book of the petitioner as brought on record by the petitioner marked as Annexure 2, that his date of birth has been tampered with and 5 (five) has been made as 8 (eight) making the same as 1948 from 1945 and the date of birth of the petitioner entered in the leave account chart remained as it is, that is, 1.3.1945. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pleadings of the parties it would not be appropriate for this Court in exercise of its power under Art. 226 of the Constitution to decide the date of birth of the petitioner as basically it would require evidence for determination of the same. 9. In the result, I find no merit in this application. 10. It is, accordingly dismissed.