JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon respondent no. 3 to forthwith give appointment to the petitioner on the post of driver, who was selected vide notification published in daily newspaper on 24.07.2010; and further prayer has been made for quashing memo dated 11.08.2012 issued by the office of respondent no. 3 in reply to the information sought for by the petitioner under R.T.I Act. 2. The facts, in brief, is that in pursuance to advertisement no. 01/2010 published for appointment on the post of driver, the petitioner applied for and after going through the selection process, his name was shown in the select list vide notification dated 24.07.2010 published in newspaper, wherein his name was shown at serial no. 13 and he was directed to appear before the respondents-authorities on 30.07.2010 along with original testimonials. In compliance thereof, the petitioner appeared on the date fixed and submitted the original educational testimonials, driving licence etc. On submitting those documents, the respondents-authorities refused to appoint the petitioner on the post in question on the ground that there is overwriting in the date of birth in the driving license of the petitioner. 3. Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Chandra Prabha, learned S.C. IV for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not the case that the driving license of the petitioner is fake one and even the respondents-authorities verified the same from District Transport Officer, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. In spite of aforesaid fact, the respondents refused to appoint the petitioner on the ground that there is overwriting in the driving license of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that at the time of applying the driving license since no documentary proof was requisitioned by the office of D.T.O in proof of date of birth, the clerical mistake cropped up in the date of birth of the petitioner, for which the petitioner had to suffer a lot. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the decision rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Ravi Vs. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the decision rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Ravi Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors passed in W.P. (S) No. 3852 of 2013 submitted that same and similar matter arising out of the same advertisement has come before this Court wherein direction has been issued to reconsider the case and take a decision afresh with regard to claim of the petitioner taking into account all attendant facts and documents and case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 5863 of 2012 and W.P. (S) No. 2012 of 2012 had also moved this Court for the same and similar relief but after filing of the writ application their grievances were redressed; hence the writ petitioners withdrew the case. 6. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as a matter of fact in the educational certificates submitted by the petitioner his date of birth is mentioned as 02.02.1982 whereas the driving license submitted by the petitioner was verified by the D.T.O, Chaibasa and upon verification, it has been stated by the D.T.O, Chaibasa that the date of birth of the petitioner has been tampered i.e. 02.02.1982' has been made to 10.03.1981; hence for the very reason he was rightly not selected. It has further been submitted that the petitioner himself admitted in his letter dated 02.02.2011 written to Sr. S.P., Jamshedpur that his date of birth was wrongly mentioned in his driving license. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner after going through the selection process for appointment on the post of Driver was selected and when he was called for document verification, he was denied appointment on the ground that there is manipulation in the date of birth shown in the driving license as date of birth mentioned in driving license as 10.03.1981 has been manipulated to be 02.02.1982. From perusal of copy of matriculation certificate annexed with the writ application, which is conclusive piece of document for ascertaining the date of birth if there is any dispute with regard to date of birth, it appears that the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 02.02.1982. From perusal of copy of matriculation certificate annexed with the writ application, which is conclusive piece of document for ascertaining the date of birth if there is any dispute with regard to date of birth, it appears that the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 02.02.1982. Even otherwise, it is neither the case of the respondents that the driving license of the petitioner is fake one not it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner at any point of time has tried to take advantage of the date of birth originally mentioned in the driving license ie. 10.03.1981. Furthermore, the petitioner has made out a case of discrimination, by referring to the decision rendered in W.P. (S) No. 3852 of 2013, W.P. (S) No. 5863 of 2012 and W.P. (S) No. 2012 of 2012, which the respondents have not sufficiently denied. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the respondent no. 3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh taking into account the observations made by this Court in the preceding paragraphs and take an appropriate decision with regard to appointment of the petitioner on the post in question within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. It further appears that memo dated 11.08.2012 is an information furnished under R.T.I, hence there is no need to pass order for quashing memo dated 11.08.2012, however, it is made clear that while passing any order by respondent no. 3, memo dated 11.08.2012 shall not come in his way in any manner. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.