Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1140 (PAT)

Abdul Quayum Khan v. State of Bihar

2004-11-10

body2004
ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to accept his date of birth as 5.5.1952 instead of 1945 and to accept his re-joining on the post from which he has retired with effect from 1.7.2003. 3. According to the case of the petitioner, he passed matriculation examination in the year 1968. In his matriculation certificate his date of birth has been recorded as 5.5.1952. On 2.11.1970 the petitioner was appointed as Police Constable and he joined the post and continued on the same. In the month of January, 1973 while the petitioner was posted as Police Constable in Ara, the Superintendent of Police, Ara issued a general direction that constables who are matriculate, may submit their matriculation certificates. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted his matriculation certificate before the Superintendent of Police, Ara but he was informed that his date of birth as recorded in the service book was 1945. The petitioner immediately filed an application before the Superintendent of Police for correction of his date of birth as mentioned in the matriculation certificate as 5.5.1952 and accordingly, his date of birth was corrected as 1952 in the service book as per direction of the Superintendent of Police. Thereafter the petitioner continued in his service and was granted promotion on the post of A.S.I. and subsequently to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. However, in the month, of March 2003 the petitioner was informed by respondent no. 5 that his date of birth is 1945 and, therefore, he will be retiring on 1.7.2003. The petitioner thereafter filed his objection urging before the authority that his date of birth is 5.5.1952 and accordingly he would retire on 5.5.2010. However, without disposing of the objection filed by the petitioner he was forced to retire w.e.f. 1.7.2003 treating his date of birth as 1945. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner at the time of his entry in the service as Police Constable in the year 1970 was already a matriculate as he had passed matriculation examination in the year 1968 wherein his date of birth was recorded as 5.5.1952 which would be evident from Annexure 1 and, therefore, his date of birth recorded in the service book as 1945 was not correct and is contrary to his matriculation certificate. It is further submitted by learned counsel that on demand the petitioner had submitted his matriculation certificate before the Superintendent of Police, Ara in the year 1973 and thereafter his date of birth was directed to be corrected in the service book as 5.5.1952 and, therefore, the authorities could not have taken a decision to ask the petitioner to superannuate prematurely w.e.t. 1.7.2003. Learned counsel further submitted that matriculation certificate which was produced before the authorities by the petitioner, could have been treated as the only basis to determine his date of birth and in support of this proposition learned counsel relied upon the case of Siyaram Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1995 Vol. I.P.L.J.R. 691. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that in the service book the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 1945 but the same has been scored through and in its place 5.5.1952 has been mentioned as date of birth and had it been a case that in his matriculation certificate his date of birth was recorded as 5.5.1952, there would have been no occasion for him to declare his date of birth at the time of his entry in service as 1945. Learned counsel for the State submitted that even assuming that the date of birth of the petitioner is 5.5.1952 then the petitioner got himself appointed in service at the age of eighteen years and six months. Learned counsel further submitted that it does not appear from service book that his date of birth was corrected by the Superintendent of Police, Ara. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner passed matriculation examination in the year 1968. It is also not in dispute that his date of birth as recorded in matriculation certificate as contained in Annexure 1 is 5.5.1952. The entry of the petitioner in service as Police Constable on 2.11.1970 is also not in dispute. 7. From the pleadings of the petitioner, it appears that on demand he produced his matriculation certificate before the authorities in the year 1973 and on that basis the Superintendent of Police asked the petitioner to explain as to why a different date of birth was recorded in his service book. 7. From the pleadings of the petitioner, it appears that on demand he produced his matriculation certificate before the authorities in the year 1973 and on that basis the Superintendent of Police asked the petitioner to explain as to why a different date of birth was recorded in his service book. The petitioner, thereafter filed his objection stating therein that he disclosed the real date of birth as recorded in his matriculation certificate but a wrong entry was made and on the basis of objection of the petitioner, necessary correction appears to have been made in the service book making his date of birth as 5.5.1952. At the face of the matriculation certificate where his date of birth has been recorded as 5.5.1952 and in view of the letter of Superintendent of Police, Ara issued vide memo no. 650/30 dated 8.2.1973 the petitioner was to explain about the discrepancy found in his date of birth and also reply filed by the petitioner dated 10.2.1973, prima facie, it cannot be said that an interpolation has been made therein at the behest of the petitioner. 8. In the case of Siyaram Singh (supra) this court held that to determine the age of an employee in public office the basic requirement would be to see the matriculation certificate and making the same as basis of the date of birth necessary rectification of date of birth is permissible and Rule 96 of Bihar Financial Rules, accordingly, is to be construed liberally. This Court, relying upon the decision rendered in the case of Siyaram Singh (supra) reiterated the same view in the case of Bhrigunath Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 12003 of 2003). 9. In the case at hand, it appears that the petitioner had passed the matriculation examination much prior to his entry in the service and, therefore, the date of birth as recorded in the matriculation certificate which was produced before the authorities, could have been treated to be the date of birth of the petitioner. Further, the matriculation certificate itself would have been the basis to determine his date of birth which, prima facie, appears to have been done and necessary correction accordingly was made in the service book entering his date of birth as 5.5.1952. 10. For the reasons and discussions aforementioned, I find merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. 10. For the reasons and discussions aforementioned, I find merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. In the result, this application is allowed and the authorities are directed to accept the date of birth of the petitioner as 5.5.1952 as disclosed in matriculation certificate for the purpose of his superannuation from service. It is further held that the petitioner would be in service throughout. No order as to costs.