M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta, appearing for the respondent B.C.C. Ltd.
(2.) THIS writ application is directed against the order dated 24.1.2001 and 29.1.2001 by which respondent No. 6 has rejected the representation of the petitioner for correction of his daie of birth and further he has been intimated that he will retire on 30.6.2001 and further for issuance of a writ upon the respondents not to give effect of the said order. It appears that after joining the services of the respondents, petitioners date of birth was shown as 5,8.1946 in all the service documents maintained by the respondents on the basis of the admit card issued by the Bihar School Examination Board in favour of the petitioner for appearing in matriculation examination held in the year 1963. However, the case of the petitioner is that the respondents changed the date of birth of the petitioner in the service paper and made it as 27 years on December, 1968. In 1992, respondent No. 5 namely. Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Bhalgora Colliery recommended the case of the petitioner for correction of date of birth but the same was ultimately rejected by he respondents.
(3.) FROM perusal of the impugned order passed by the respondents, it appears that the ground for rejection of the representation inter alia is that query was made from the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna in regard to the veracity and authenticity of the admit card but the reply alleged to have been sent by the Board is without any date and seal of the Board. Another ground for rejecting the representation is that petitioner is a taken over employee by the B.C.C. Ltd. whose age was entered in the service record of ex -employer as 27 years as in December, 1968. Moreover, the admit card and the marks sheet produced by the petitioner is in the name of Arjun Prasad Yadav son of Pradip Singh Yadav whereas the petitioners name is Arjun Prasad son of Pradeep Singh Yadav. Respondents therefore, disputing the genuineness of these documents, rejected the representation of the petitioner.;