Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 773 (PAT)

Prabhat Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2008-06-26

NAVIN SINHA

body2008
Judgment 1. I.A. No. 2355 of 2008 has been filed for intervention on behalf of one Kamlesh Kumar Singh. 2. Pressing the application for intervention learned Counsel submitted that he is affected inasmuch as consequent to the appointment of the petitioner in pursuance of the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner the services of the intervener have been terminated. Since the intervener has already filed a separate substantive writ application numbered as CWJC No. 15380 of 2006, this Court is not persuaded to allow the intervention application. In any event the controversy in the present writ application is limited to the extent of age of the petitioner only. 3. I.A. No. 2355 of 2008 is accordingly rejected. 4. The petitioner was appointed as a Shiksha Mitra initially on contract basis for 11 months. This came to be extended for another tenure of 11 months valid from 10.4.2004 to 10.3.2005. During this period his services were terminated by an order dated 16.7.2004 which was assailed by him in CWJC No. 16334 of 2004 and in pursuance of orderspassed therein the Collector directed his reappointment and he joined on 1.2.2007. He is now aggrieved by order dated 27.8.2007 passed by respondent no. 8 terminating his services afresh on the ground that he appeared to have two dates of birth i.e. 12.12.1975 and 5.3.1988. 5. The contention of the petitioner supported by his certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board is that his correct date of birth is 12.12.1975. His School Leaving Certificate also records his date of birth as 12.12.1975. When he applied to the respondent Sanskrit Shiksha Board for appearing in the Madhyama Examination, 2004, the Board issued him the admit card recording his date of birth as 12.12.1975 presently at Annexure-13. It is contended that if his date of birth is 5.3.1988 as suggested by the respondents he would be approximately 2 years of age at the time when he gave his Matriculation Examination in 1990. But if his date of birth be 12.12.1975 he would be 29 years on the date that the admit card was issued by the Sanskrit Shiksha Board for appearing at the Madhyama Examination. He also places before this Court the original admit card as contained in Annexure-13. 6. But if his date of birth be 12.12.1975 he would be 29 years on the date that the admit card was issued by the Sanskrit Shiksha Board for appearing at the Madhyama Examination. He also places before this Court the original admit card as contained in Annexure-13. 6. Learned Counsel for the State contended that since there was serious controversy with regard to the correct date of birth of the petitioner and in the event that his date of birth was 5.3.1988 the petitioner was clearly ineligible on the date that he came to be appointed as Shiksha Mitra. 7. Shri Tej Bahadur Singh appearing on behalf of the respondent Sanskrit Shiksha Board submitted that in the Tabulation Register and Registration Form for the Madhyama Examination the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 5.3.1988. He additionally submits that while the petitioner claims his name as Prabhat Kumar, his name mentioned in the Tabulation Register and Registration Register is recorded as Prabhat Kumar Singh, but he fairly concedes that the parentage is common in both. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Board. It does not dispute or deny the genuineness or correctness of Annexure-13, the admit card issued by the Board to the petitioner. Even during submissions, no suggestion was made on behalf of the Board of any doubts for genuineness of the same. Moreover from the impugned order at Annexure-17 dated 27.8.2007 it is apparent that there has been no semblance of any enquiry on facts made before issuance of the impugned order to arrive at a determination of the date of birth of the petitioner as 5.3.1988 and not 12.12.1975 as claimed by him. The order does not reflect any consideration of the reply to the show cause. The order is therefore rendered arbitrary. 9. This Court has also perused the original admit card of the petitioner affixing his photograph as contained in Annexure-13 placed by the Counsel for the petitioner during the proceedings. The genuineness of the admit card issued by the respondent-Board is not in controversy and neither is the photograph affixed to the admit card in controversy. If the date of birth of the petitioner be 5.3.1988 he would be approximately 16 years in the year 2004 when he sat for the Madhyama Examination. The genuineness of the admit card issued by the respondent-Board is not in controversy and neither is the photograph affixed to the admit card in controversy. If the date of birth of the petitioner be 5.3.1988 he would be approximately 16 years in the year 2004 when he sat for the Madhyama Examination. At this stage submission of the Counsel for the petitioner that in terms thereof he would have been two years old when he completed his Matriculation in the year 1990 also assumes significance. But if his date of birth is 12.12.1975 he would be approximately 29 years when he sat for the Madhyama Examination. On perusal of photograph of the petitioner appended to the admit card it is more than apparent to an average reasonable prudent person that it is not a photograph of a 16 years old boy but is of a 29 years old adult. 10. In the facts and circumstances, this application has to be allowed. The impugned order of termination dated 27.8.2007 is hereby quashed. The petitioner stands reinstated with all consequential benefits.