Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 844 (PAT)

Md. Anwarul Hassan v. State Of Bihar

2005-09-16

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this court by way of this writ application for necessary correction of his date of birth. 3. According to the petitioner, he passed matriculation examination in the year 1961 and his date of birth has been recorded as 5.4.1946 in the matriculation certificate. However, according to the case of the respondents, his date of birth was recorded in service book as 14.12.1941. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Literate Constable in the year 1964 and his date of birth was recorded in the service records according to his matriculation certificate which was produced by him but some how or the other, the authorities recorded his date of birth as 14.12.1941 without any declaration given by the petitioner in this regard. 5. A dispute now has arisen as to whether at the time of his entry in service he had produced the matriculation certificate or not or as to whether his date of birth is 5.4.1946 or 14.12.1941. 6. Learned counsel for the State submitted that on the basis of the declaration given by the petitioner, his date of birth was recorded in service records as 14.12.1941. On asking by court, learned counsel for the State, however, could not produce declaration given by the petitioner in. writing showing his date of birth as 14.12.1941 rather it appears from the statements made in the writ application and also the supplementary affidavit that at the time of entry of the petitioner in service in 1964, he had declared his date of birth as recorded in the matriculation certificate. 7. It is not in dispute that at the time of entry of the petitioner in service, he was matriculate and normally at the time of entry in service the authorities insist for either declaration of date of birth or production of the matriculation certificate in token of the date of birth. The matriculation certificate has evidentiary value so far the date of birth of a person is concerned. The matriculation certificate so produced by the petitioner, however, was verified by the authorities and the same was found to be genuine. The date of birth recorded in matriculation certificate, therefore, could be treated as the date of birth of the petitioner for all practical purposes. The matriculation certificate so produced by the petitioner, however, was verified by the authorities and the same was found to be genuine. The date of birth recorded in matriculation certificate, therefore, could be treated as the date of birth of the petitioner for all practical purposes. I am informed that the petitioner superannuated with effect from 14.12.1999 treating his date of birth as 14.12.1941. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the age of superannuation now is sixty years and if the date of birth of the petitioner is treated to be 5.4.1946, he is entitled to be taken back in service lo serve for the remainder period of his service. 8. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities concerned are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner to ascertain the date of birth of the petitioner in the light of the observations made by this court as referred to above. The matriculation certifi-cate of the petitioner should be the whole basis for determining the date of his birth The authorities accordingly shall pass necessary orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ application is disposed of.