- (1.) THE appellant, who was appointed in the year 1971 as Line Mistry, applied for correction of his date of birth vide representation dated 18th April, 1995, which was rejected by the respondents vide letter No. 538, dated 22nd April, 1995, as quoted hereunder : Shri Ram Lakhan Mahato, Line Mistry, Joy Ampur Colliery. D/Sir, We are in receipt of your application dated 18.4.1995, in respect of correction of date of birth. In this connection this is to inform you that the matter has been examined as per record available with us and found that your age has been assessed by the Appex Medical Board and date of birth record as per Medical Board is 20.10.1944. As such your request cannot be conceded to. Yours faithfully, Sd/ - Manager/Agent, Joyrampur Colliery
(2.) AFTER seven years of rejection i.e., in the year 2002, the appellant preferred a writ petition before this Court challenging the rejection order dated 22nd April, 1995. Learned single Judge having noticed the submission, held that the question whether the petitioner was born on 1st July, 1951 or 20th October 1944 cannot be a subject -matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in Geeta Mala V/s. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, reported in 2002 (3) JCR 11 (Jhr) and submitted that the date of birth cannot be changed without issuing notice to the petitioner. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in Sheoji Singh v. J.S.E.B., reported in 2003 (2) JLJR 53, wherein the Court held that the petitioner of the said case being a 4th Grade Employee could have neither understood the consequences of appearing before the medical board nor could have disobeyed the orders of the authorities as such, it cannot be submitted that the employee having already submitted to the jurisdiction of the medical board he cannot challenge the decision of the medical board.
(3.) WE have doubt relating to a decision rendered in the case of Sheoji Singh (supra) but are not going to decide the aforesaid issue in the present case.;