Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 701 (PAT)

Bhrigunath Singh v. State Of Bihar

2004-07-16

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Additional Advocate General No. I for the respondents and also learned counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board. 2. This writ application is directed against the order as contained in Annexure-1 issued vide Order No. 17 N/03 dated 25.8.2003 whereby and whereunder representation filed by the petitioner for rectification of the mistake of his date of birth in the service book has been rejected. 3. Precisely, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had passed matriculation examination in the year, 1966 and in the matriculation certificate, his date of birth has been shown as 20th January, 1950. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Civil Courts, Gopalganj, the petitioner applied for class lV post. The petitioner was finally selected and he joined the post on 15.7.1972 and at that time he had produced the matriculation certificate and on the basis of the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate, his service book was opened. However, at the fag end of his tenure when the petitioner had to get his papers prepared for the pensionary benefits, he came to know that his date of birth in the service book has wrongly been mentioned as 31st December, 1945. The petitioner thereafter filed his representation before the District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj for rectification of the mistake which had occurred in the service book pertaining to his date of birth and by the order impugned, his prayer has been rejected saying that his representation is barred in view of Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that matriculation certificate which was produced by the petitioner coold have been treated as the only basis to determine his date of birth and in that view of the matter, Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules could have been construed liberally giving relaxation in the time limit. In this context, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Siyaram Singh V/s. The State of Bihar [1995(1) PLJR 691]. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General No. l, on the contrary, submitted that the application filed by the petitioner at the fag end of his career was itself barred under Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules and, therefore, there was no occasion for the authorities to relax the rule. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General No. l, on the contrary, submitted that the application filed by the petitioner at the fag end of his career was itself barred under Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules and, therefore, there was no occasion for the authorities to relax the rule. Learned counsel further submitted that this rule can be relaxed in appropriate cases during the service tenure of a Government servant but not at the fag end of his career. 6. For the order impugned as contained in Annexure-1, it appears that the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected holding the same as time barred under Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules. The learned District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj has not considered the matriculation certificate produced by the petitioner in token of his date of birth. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not matriculate at the time of his entry in service nor it is the case that the petitioner had never produced the matriculation certificate in token of his date of birth. 7. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the learned District & Sessions Judge could have rectified the mistake in the date of birth of the petitioner on the basis of the matriculation certificate. 8. In the case of Siyaram Singh V/s. The State of Bihar & others {supra), this Court held that to determine the age of an employee in public service, the basic requirement would be to see the matriculation certificate and making the same as basis of date of birth, the necessary rectification of the date of birth is permissible and Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules, accordingly, is to be construed liberally. In many cases this Court has consistently taken a view that neither the period mentioned in Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules nor the period of one year mentioned in the said circular dated 26th February, 1976 is mandatory and in appropriate cases, prayer for correction of the date of birth may be entertained even after expiry of the aforesaid period. This Court again in the case of Murli Manohar Tiwary V/s. The State of Bihar and others (1986 PLJR 1180), while considering the similar matter, held that the benefit of the circular of the State Government dated 26th February, 1976 should be made available to those persons who had passed matriculation examination before their appointment, but the dates of birth entered in the service book were different from what has been mentioned in the matriculation certificate. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the legal propositions, as noticed above, the order impugned is not sustainable in law and the matter requires fresh consideration by the District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj. 10. In the result, this application is allowed. The order impugned as contained in Annexure-1 is set aside and the matter is rernitted back to the District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth in the light of the observations and law laid down by this Court, as referred to above.