High CourtsSingle Bench

Radhe Shyam Singh vs State of Bihar and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 11 August 2000 · Citation: (2001) 1 PLJR 451

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J
CASE NUMBER
C.W.J.C. No. 6847 of 1999
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 419 words

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—This application has been preferred by the Petitioner for correction of date of birth, in terms with the matriculation certificate.

2.

From the pleading made by the Petitioner and the enclosures attached to the writ petition, it will be evident that the Petitioner was appointed as Sepoy in B.M.P. 8 on 16th April, 1964. His service Book was opened and date of birth was recorded as 1st July, 1942.

3.

According to the Petitioner, in the matriculation examination, his date of birth has been shown to be 15th January, 1945 and thereby the date of birth should have been corrected accordingly.

4.

According to the counsel for the State, the Petitioner never informed that he has passed matriculation examination nor the certificate was produced before Selection Board, where in after the date of birth was entered in the service record.

5.

Further, according to him, the date of birth of Petitioner in the service book cannot be corrected, as a period of more than ten years has passed after its posting in the Service Book.

6.

In connection with number of cases, it has come to the notice of the Court that the State Govt. issued guidielines in 1976, wherein it was stipulated to correct the date of birth on the basis of matriculation certificate. In one or other case, including the case of Ram Sobhit Rai v. State of Bihar, reproted in 1989 BBCJ 141, this Court held that if the candidate has passed the matriculation examination prior to appointment then in that case, the date of birth should be corrected on the basis of matriculation certificate.

7.

In the present case, as the Petitioner states that he has passed the matriculation examination prior to appointment in 1962, I feel that the matter requires reconsideration by the Respondents.

8.

Accordingly, I remit the case to the Respondents before whom the Petitioner will produce the original matriculation certificate. If it is found that the Petitioner has passed the matriculation examination prior, to his appointment, they will correct the date of birth, in the service record, if there is any difference, on the basis of date of birth, as recorded in the matriculation certificate, i.e. 15th January, 1945.

9.

A decision, in this respect, be taken and communicated to the Petitioner within three months from the date of appearance, when the Petitioner will file a representation and produce the original copy of the matriculation certificate.

10.

The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and directions.