Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Sri Irshad Ali and A.K. Rai for respondent No. 6.
(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.2.2009 and 25.11.2009 passed by the respondent Nos. 5 and 3 respectively. According to learned counsel when the petitioner had appeared in the high school examination of 2007 she had been issued the mark-sheet dated 5.6.2007 wherein her date of birth had been shown as 20.7.1986. The petitioner alleges that she applied for selection as Aganbadi Karyakatri and made an application that her date of birth as given in the high school certificate is to be corrected for which the petitioner has made an application however she submitted the form by giving the date of birth as mentioned in the high school certificate namely 20.7.1986. The petitioner was selected but her selection was cancelled on the ground that on 1.7.2007 she was under 21 years of age having been born on 20.7.1986. The petitioner in the meantime got her date of birth corrected in the high school mark-sheet to read as 20.1.1986.
(3.) Sri Khare submits that when the date of birth was corrected to 20.1.1986 the petitioner was 21 years of age on 1.7.2007 and hence made a representation which was not decided and ultimately by an order dated 5.5.2009 passed in earlier writ petition No. 2334 of 2009 her representation has been decided by the impugned order dated 25.11.2009. It is stated that the aforesaid aspect that the date of birth stood corrected as 20.1.1986 has not been properly considered by the District Magistrate, Mau inasmuch as he has erroneously recorded that since the petitioner had shown her date of birth as 20.7.1986 and her original high school mark-sheet also showed the same date hence subsequent amendment in the date of birth in the high school mark-sheet cannot give any right to the petitioner for engagement being underage.;