NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Annexure 2 whereby his age has been determined as between 54 -56 i.e. 55 years on 11.4.2000 in variation of the date of birth recorded in his service book, opened as far back as on 15.12.1977 in which his date of birth has been recorded as 19.12.1947.
(2.) THE petitioner's case is that he was appointed as unskilled Khalasi by the Bihar State Electricity Board and was posted at Patratu Thermal Power Station. In his service book, which was opened after joining the service, his date of birth was recorded as 19.12.1947. According to the date of birth recorded in the service book, the petitioner would attain 60 years of age i.e. the age of superannuation in December 2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that all of a sudden the petitioner was directed to appear at a Medical Board at Patna in the year 2000, although there was never any dispute regarding his age/date of birth since the date, the same was entered in the service record about more than 22 years ago at the time of joining his service in 1977. The petitioner, however, without knowing the purpose, appeared before the Medical Board and on the alleged suspicion must surprisingly by Annexure -2 the petitioner's age was re -determined as 55 years. According to the petitioner the said revision of date of birth and age after more than two decades of his joining the service is wholly arbitrary, mala fide and not permissible in law. A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5 (Bihar State Electricity Board) stating, inter alia, that the Board had constituted a committee to examine the issues/cases of doubtful date of birth. The date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 19.12.1947 in the service book which was opened on 9.1.1979. Subsequently, the committee reported that the entry of date of birth of the petitioner was made by overwriting and some manipulation was found in Matriculation certificate pasted in the service book by damaging the certificate and on that basis the petitioner was asked to appear before the Medical Board for determination of his age.
(3.) MR . Rajendra Pd., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the action of the respondents in re -determining the age and altering the date of birth of the petitioner after a lapse of 22 years is wholly arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel submitted that there is absolutely no legal justification and there is no such provision in the service rule to alter the petitioner's age at the fag end of his service. Learned counsel urged that almost in similar facts situation and circumstances, this Court has quashed such determination/alteration of date of birth in several writ petitions filed by the aggrieved persons. One such order dated 11.7.2001 passed in CWJC No. 4105/2000 (R) has been brought on record as Annexure -3 to this writ application. Learned counsel further relied on a decision of this Court rendered in Ramkisun Mahto v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, reported in 2003 (2) JCR 400.;