BAIDYANATH PRASHAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANNEXURES 4 and 6 have been impugned in this application which relate to a controversy regarding the age of the petitioner and his consequential retirement. The petitioner claims his date of birth to be 3. -12 -1930 on the basis of annexure -1 the matriculation certificate. The Government has placed the date of birth as 3 -12 -1924 based on the entry in the service book.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 21 -1 -19(sic) by the Superintendent of Police, Railway, Patna. The date of birth given at the time of his appointment was 3 -12 -1924. It is not disputed that the petitioner has passed the matriculation in the year 1945 i.e. prior to his appointment and his date of birth in the certificate is given as

(3.) -12 -1930. The genuineness of this certificate which is annexure -1 was inquired into and is now not disputed. In the year 1975 by an order dated 6. -6 -1975 being D. O. No. 550 of 1975, the Suprintendent of Police, Mawadah, rectified the date of birth of the petitioner and changed it to 3rd December 1930 relying on the matriculation certificate The Deputy Inspector General, Administration, by his memo No. 2030 dated 26 -6 -1976 directed that since the Inspector General of Police, Bihar, is the only competent authority to allow the correction of the date of birth, the rectification made by the S. P., Nawadah, vide annexure -2 was cancelled and it was further directed that the previous date of birth which was already recorded in the service book will stand restored. When the petitioner came to know of this change in 1981, since according to him no notice was issued to him when the order of the S. P. was rescinded, a representation was filed which is annexure -3 to the petition seeking the restoration of the year of birth as recorded, in the matriculation certificate, This representation was rejected It may be stated that the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity provided by the Government to the government servants to get their date of birth rectified since the S.P. had already effected the necessary correction. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that if his date of birth is 3 -12 -1930 the petitioner could not be retired us is proposed to be done by annexure -6. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that having once fixed the age as 3 -12 -1930 it was not legal for the State to change the date of birth without notice to this petitioner. It was also contended that having appointed the petitioner, even if the petitioner was under -age on the basis of the age claimed by the petitioner, the State Government cannot now take the plea of improper appointment. It was contended that S. P. had power to pass the order as contained in annexure -2. Lastly it was contended that the entry quoting the date as 1924 was not made by the petitioner, and therefore, he could not be bound down by that entry.