Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 323 (PAT)

Manisha Kumari v. Union Of India

2006-04-17

RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. This writ petition has been fifed for a direction to the respondents to allow both the petitioners. Manisha Kumari and Neha Kumari to be admitted in Class-VI in the Session of 2005 against the existing vacant seat in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Chayan Pariksha, 2005 in which they have earlier been selected after a written test but subsequently they were informed that a medical test would be conducted by a Medical Board which Board declared the said two candidates overage. 3. It appears from the prospectus of the said written test for Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya which is Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that eligibility criteria regarding age was fixed in the manner that the date of birth of the candidates concerned was to be in between 1.5.1992 to 30.4.1996. These two petitioners had appeared in the said selection test and were found eligible for admission but thereafter it appeared to the school authorities that they were of more age than permissible under the rules of the selection test and accordingly they were referred to the Chief Medical Officer who found them overage. Thereafter the petitioners filed this writ petition claiming that they have been wrongly examined. The date of birth of Manisha Kumari, petitioner no. 1 is 1.5.1993 while that of petitioner no. 2. Neha Kumari is 24.4.1993 and in both their cases the said date of birth as filled in their admit card has been duly attested by the Head-master of the Primary School. On the basis of the said dates of birth both the petitioners claimed to be admitted to class VI in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Bihiya. 4. The respondents filed a counter affidavit in the Court enclosing Annexure-B. Annexure-B contains the chart with regard to the conclusion of Medical Board which was constituted under the Chairmanship of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer Dr. S.K. Mahto. On 11.7.2005 at request made by Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Bhojpur. The name of petitioner no. 1 Manisha Kumari, appears at Serial No. 4 of the said chart and with respect to her approximate age has been given as between 14 to 15 years on 11.7.2005. Thus, even giving her the benefit of the lowerage her date of birth would be 11.7.1991 which clearly makes her over age in terms of the criteria laid down in the prospectus. Thus, even giving her the benefit of the lowerage her date of birth would be 11.7.1991 which clearly makes her over age in terms of the criteria laid down in the prospectus. Similarly with respect to Neha Kumari whose name appears at Serial No. 11 it has been found that she is aged between 16 years and 17 years and, thus, she is also overage in terms of the prospectus. 5. The petitioners when confronted with the said report of the Medical Board made various allegations against the Principal and the local authorities who constituted the Medical Board and, thus, this Court by order dated 22.2.2006 directed the Registrar General of this Court to forward the X-ray plates of the petitioners to the Superintendent, Patna Medical College with a request to him to constitute a Medical Board for consideration of the age of the petitioners. Subsequently by order dated 3.3.2006 both the petitioners were directed to be present before the Medical Board constituted by the Superintendent, Patna Medical College, Patna, at 11.00 A.M. on 11th March, 2006. 6. In terms of the aforesaid directions the reports have been received from the Superintendent, Patna Medical College, Patna, in sealed cover by letter No. 2113 dated 20.3.2006. In the said letter it is stated that petitioner no. 1, Manisha Kumari, presented herself before the Board on 11.3.2006 as directed and she was examined on the said date and again after the receipt of the X-ray report there was second meeting of the Medical Board on 23.3.2006. Thereafter the Medical Board gave its report wherein it was of the opinion of that Manisha Kumari was aged in between 15 years to 16 years on the said date. Thus, even according to the said report the petitioner is overage and not fit to be admitted in terms of the conditions laid down in the prospectus. 7. With respect to petitioner no. 2 Neha Kumari it is informed by the aforesaid letter dated 20.3.2006 of the Superintendent, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna that in terms of the Joint Director Health Services, Bihar, letter No. 2060(14) dated 19.9.2005 Neha Kumari had been examined by a Medical Board constituted at the level of the P.M.C.H. and by Memo No. 2070 dated 18.3.2006 a attested copy of the report determining her age has been sent. From a perusal of the medical report contained in Memo No. 2070 dated 18.3.2006 which was sent in another sealed cover it is clear that Neha Kumari, petitioner no. 2, has been found aged between 14 to 15 years. Thus, she is also overage in terms of the conditions laid down in the prospectus. 8. Faced with the above situation the counsel for the petitioners has sought to rely upon a case reported in 2006(1) PLJR 391(S.C.): Vishnu vs. State of Maharashtra. In para 22 of the said Judgment the Apex Court has dealt with the question of determination of date of birth of the child. In the case of determination of date of birth of the child, it was held that the best evidence is of the father and the mother especially when it is supported by unimpeachable documents as in the said case. The said testimony will stand above the expert opinion of the doctor with regard to the determination of age based on ossification test scientifically conducted. In the said paragraph itself it is clear that the age of the prosecutrix of that case in the school certificate was recorded as higher than the age during the proceedings in Court and the Supreme Court was pleased to remark that such incorrect date of birth is entered presumably with a view to make up the age to secure admission in the said school. Thus, said remarks of the Supreme Court, in fact, goes against the claim of the petitioners in the present case. The petitioners have not in the present matter produced any unimpeachable documents to support the age furnished by them and further it is a common practice in this country to state higher or lower age of their wards as per the convenience of the guardians in order to secure their admission in the school. Hence in a case of present nature, in case of doubt, the best course the authorities to have the age determined by independent Medical Board and treat the said report as final unless unimpeachable documents to the contrary ate produced by the petitioners in support of their claim. The earlier Medical Report of the Medical Board under the Chairmanship of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer is substantially corroborated by the age determined by the Medical Board constituted by the Superintendent, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna. 9. The earlier Medical Report of the Medical Board under the Chairmanship of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer is substantially corroborated by the age determined by the Medical Board constituted by the Superintendent, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna. 9. Thus, on the basis of the facts as found above it is held that this writ petition has no merit and is fit to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to cost.