Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 201 (JHR)

Ram Lakhan Mahto v. Bihar Coking Coal Ltd.

2005-03-10

N.N.TIWARI, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2005
ORDER 1. The appellant, who was appointed in the year 1971 as Line Mistry, applied for correction of his date of birth vide representation dated 18th April, 1995, which was rejected by the respondents vide letter No. 538, dated 22nd April, 1995, as quoted hereunder : "Shri Ram Lakhan Mahato, Line Mistry, Joy Ampur Colliery. D/Sir, We are in receipt of your application dated 18.4.1995, in respect of correction of date of birth. In this connection this is to inform you that the matter has been examined as per record available with us and found that your age has been assessed by the Appex Medical Board and date of birth record as per Medical Board is 20.10.1944. As such your request cannot be conceded to. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Manager/Agent, Joyrampur Colliery" 2. After seven years of rejection i.e., in the year 2002, the appellant preferred a writ petition before this Court challenging the rejection order dated 22nd April, 1995. Learned single Judge having noticed the submission, held that the question whether the petitioner was born on 1st July, 1951 or 20th October 1944 cannot be a subject-matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in Geeta Mala v. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, reported in 2002 (3) JCR 11 (Jhr) and submitted that the date of birth cannot be changed without issuing notice to the petitioner. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in Sheoji Singh v. J.S.E.B., reported in 2003 (2) JLJR 53 , wherein the Court held that the petitioner of the said case being a 4th Grade Employee could have neither understood the consequences of appearing before the medical board nor could have disobeyed the orders of the authorities as such, it cannot be submitted that the employee having already submitted to the jurisdiction of the medical board he cannot challenge the decision of the medical board. 4. We have doubt relating to a decision rendered in the case of Sheoji Singh (supra) but are not going to decide the aforesaid issue in the present case. 5. Admittedly, the appellant was examined by a Medical Board in the year 1982 which has been pleaded in his writ petition. 4. We have doubt relating to a decision rendered in the case of Sheoji Singh (supra) but are not going to decide the aforesaid issue in the present case. 5. Admittedly, the appellant was examined by a Medical Board in the year 1982 which has been pleaded in his writ petition. The Medical Board at Kustore Central Hospital examined the appellant and four others on 20th October, 1982 and made the following recommendation : "The Medical Board at Kustore Central Hospital examined the following persons of your Area on 20/10/82 at 10 a.m. and the opinion of the Board are as follows : ----------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Place of Age as Approx age as Persons and posting stated assessed by designation the Board. ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. Shri Ghura Joyrampur 31 years 41 years Paswan D.G. Trammer, 83720/Misc ----------------------------------------------------------- 2. Shri Sitaram Joyrampur 30 45 Paswan D.G. Trammer, 83707/Misc. ----------------------------------------------------------- 3. Shri Babulal 35 51 Paswan Miner/ Loader, 83928/ML ----------------------------------------------------------- 4. Shri Ramlakhan 31 38 Mahto Line Mistry, 83269/TR ----------------------------------------------------------- 5. Sri Dinanth 46 52 Singh, Tuo Checker, 83411/S" ----------------------------------------------------------- 6. The aforesaid decision of the Medical Board was communicated by the Medical Superintendent, Kustore Central Hospital & Chairman, Medical Board vide Memo No. 1840, dated 15th November, 1982. The aforesaid decision of the Medical Board was not challenged by the appellant/petitioner in the writ petition nor in this appeal which reached finality more than 20 years back. 7. In this background, at the time of retirement of the appellant, he cannot be allowed to reopen the question of date of birth as already recorded in his service record. There being no merit, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.