ORDER : (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.) 1. By filing this Letters Patent Appeal, the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.2296 of 2012, has assailed the order passed by learned Single Judge on 11.08.2022, dismissing his writ petition. 2. Petitioner had filed the writ petition for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus upon the respondents, in particular, respondent No.5, i.e., Senior Superintendent of Police-cum-Chairman of Police, Driver Appointment Committee, Office at Kutchery Chowk, PO GPO, PS Kotwali, District Ranchi to appoint the petitioner in the post of Driver in Jharkhand Police pursuant to advertisement issued by the respondents being Advertisement No.01 of 2009, wherein petitioner has been selected in the above concerned post in the result published by the respondents on 20.02.2012, in which petitioner’s name finds place at Sl. No.56, but respondents, allegedly, arbitrarily not mentioned the name of the petitioner in the final list published in Dainik Jagaran News Paper on 14.04.2012. 3. The facts of the case are not in dispute at this stage. The respondents issued the aforesaid notification on 10.10.2009 in various newspapers. At the time of issuance of advertisement, 50% of the posts were reserved for Home Guard candidates. Petitioner was a Home Guard. He applied for the aforesaid post. Admit Card was issued to the petitioner by the respondents and the petitioner appeared in the selection process, having Roll No.2161. Thereafter the petitioner appeared in physical test, written test on 13.02.2010, but no final result was published on that examination conducted on 13.02.2010 in which petitioner has been declared as passed candidate. The respondents cancelled the said examination with respect to the petitioner and declared results on 04.10.2010. It was communicated to the petitioner that the petitioner has given different dates of births in different documents. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State-respondents, we are of the opinion that the case is in very narrow compass, i.e., whether the date of birth reflected in the Secondary School Certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board reflecting the date of birth of the petitioner to be 01.03.1978 and the original driving licence issued in his favour showing his date of birth to be 01.01.1980 shall prevail and whether subsequent correction made by the District Transport Authority correcting the date of birth of the petitioner in the driving licence shall have any effect. 5. 5. It is not disputed that in the advertisement, the petitioner was not required to submit a copy of the Driving Licence. Among other things, he was required to produce a copy of the Secondary School Certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board in evidence of the date of birth to determine whether he is qualified in terms of age, i.e., whether he is above the minimum age and below the maximum age prescribed for the post of Driver. The petitioner applied thereto and was provisionally called for an examination. He passed the physical examination, driving skill test etc. and was placed at Sl. No.56 in the merit list. However, taking into consideration the documents produced by him at the time of scrutiny, the authorities noticed that date of birth mentioned in the Driving Licence is different from the date of birth mentioned in the Secondary School Certificate. Therefore, his candidature was cancelled and he was denied appointment. 6. Counsel for the appellant-petitioner argued in two folds. He submits that appellant-petitioner will gain nothing by showing his date of birth to be 01.01.1980. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that due to bonafide mistake and inadvertence, the date of birth of the petitioner has been printed in the Driving Licence as 01.01.1980, whereas the date of birth of the petitioner was 01.03.1978. This defect was later on rectified by the District Transport Authorities and the date of birth has been correctly mentioned in the Smart Card issued by the Transport Authorities. 7. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that there is no willful suppression of fact in this case. By showing himself to be a person born on 01.03.1978 the petitioner will gain nothing if he shows the date of birth as 01.01.1980. Moreover, while determining the date of birth, it is well settled principle of law and it is also enshrined in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act that the date of birth mentioned in the Secondary School Certificate shall prevail over all other documents. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioner, who is otherwise qualified, did not have any ulterior motive. Moreover, it was incumbent upon the part of the District Transport Authorities to verify the forms and documents before issuing the Driving Licence in the initial stage. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioner, who is otherwise qualified, did not have any ulterior motive. Moreover, it was incumbent upon the part of the District Transport Authorities to verify the forms and documents before issuing the Driving Licence in the initial stage. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should not be punished for the mistake that has been committed inadvertently for which District Transport Authorities are also somewhat responsible. This Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 11.08.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.2296 of 2012 is hereby set aside. The respondent No.5 is directed to engage the petitioner as Driver in the Jharkhand Police within a period of 45 days. Further care should be taken as in the meantime he has become overage and appropriate training should be imparted by the authorities before assigning any duty to him as driver of the Police Department. There shall be no order as to cost.