Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and the State.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that by the impugned order dated 30th November 2012, issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur (Annexure -7 to the writ petition), he has been prematurely retired treating his date of birth as 5th November 1952 instead of 5th November 1962, which is corroborated by his Matriculation Certificate (Annexure -1) issued by the Secondary Education Council, Uttar Pradesh on 8th July 1978. The petitioner is said to have entered the service in 1981 on the basis of the aforesaid educational qualification and after having detected incorrect entry in his date of birth earlier, he has made representation. However, the respondents have chosen to retire the petitioner on the basis of the incorrect date of birth recorded initially in the service record, though the Medical Board constituted by the respondents on his request in the year 2012, has assessed his age between 50 -55 years which corresponds the age shown in the Matriculation Certificate i.e. 5th November 1962. In these circumstances, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order.
(3.) RESPONDENTS have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim for correction of date of birth of the petitioner was earlier also made and was rejected by an order passed on 16th February 1999 by the Superintendent of Police, Saran, Chapra (Annexure -D to the counter affidavit) which has never been challenged. The said rejection was made on the grounds that the application for correction of date of birth was made much beyond the period of ten years, as permissible under Rule -96 of the Finance Rules and Rule -104 -B of the Police Manual. In the service record of the petitioner, though he is shown as Matric pass, but his date of birth is shown as 1952. It is further submitted that the petitioner once again made an application for correction in his date of birth in the year 2012 which was inquired into and also a Medical Board was constituted which gave an opinion that the age of the petitioner appears to be between 50 -55 years. The Senior Superintendent of Police along with other Members of the Board, after due consideration of the petitioner's representation, have come to the finding that there are significant variation in respect of the age of the petitioner as is shown in the service record, opinion of the Medical Board and date of birth shown in the Matriculation Certificate produced by him. It has also been noticed that earlier, such claim was rejected by the respondents on 16th February 1999 itself. Therefore, the petitioner having attained the age of 60 years, has been superannuated, which need not be interfered with.;