D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly because of an order dated 29.12.2006 passed by the respondents which is at Annexure -16 to the memo of the present petition whereby the claim of the present petitioner is that his correct date of birth is 18th of July, 1952 has been discarded and his date of birth which is recorded by the respondents i.e. 21 st of February, 1947 has been accepted as correct date of birth and because of this decision of continuation of incorrect date of birth, the present petition has been preferred.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears : - (a) that the present petitioner was cleared his Secondary School Examination, 1968 and as per the School Certificate Examination, his date of birth is 18th July, 1952. This fact is not in dispute. It is not the contention of respondent that the certificate is fabricated or the facts stated in the said certificate are wrong. (b) that the petitioner had joined the service of the respondent in the year 1972. Consistently it has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that this petitioner in 1972 has not presented matriculation certificate/mark -sheet nor he has accurately filled up the necessary columns in the Personal Data Form (Annexure -A of the counter affidavit) and also not correctly filled up Attestation Form (Annexure -B of the counter affidavit). (c) that it is too much to expect from SSC passed person to fill up meticulously long and detailed form in 1972, but, the fact remains that he had cleared his SSC examination in which the correct date of birth is given as 18th July, 1952. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the committee who has passed an order at Annexure -16 dated 29th December, 2006. (d) that concerned respondent authorities are also giving a chance to their employees that if they have acquired higher qualifications during their service period the same may be brought to the notice of respondent authority so that they can be considered for an appropriate posts or for appropriate work and also for incentives. In exercising this option, the present petitioner has stated before the respondents that though he has not achieved higher education qualification during the employment, but his education qualification is not properly reflected in the Personal Data Form and in the companies record and, therefore, it was requested by the petitioner that in the Personal Data Form as well as in the record of the respondent -Company it may be mentioned that he has acquired his matriculation certificate examination. There is also a correspondence by the company dated 30th October, 1981 that they have accepted the requests of the petitioner for insertion of the education qualification already acquired by the petitioner in the Personal Data Form and in the records of the respondents -Company. Thus, matriculation certificate must have been presented before the respondent authorities much earlier at the appointment time i.e. 1972 itself. Assuming without admitting that the matriculation certificate was not presented in 1972, but in any case it was brought to the notice of respondents at least in the year, 1981. Respondent -Company had also accepted this certificate as valid one and put remark in relevant column, in Personal Data Form that petitioner has cleared matriculation examination. Looking to this certificate only the company has accepted the insertion of his education qualification. If the certificate would have been closely watched, the correct date of birth i.e. 18th July, 1952 could have been noticed by the respondent -Company and the correct date of birth revealed in the certificate could have been inserted in the proper column of the Personal Data Form or in other record of the company. This exercise was not accurately done by the respondent -Company at the relevant time. (e) that Personal Data Form (Annexure -A to the counter affidavit) reveals at column no. 8 as "Date of birth and present age: 1948 -25 years". Thus, it appears that a lump sum date of birth was mentioned. No accuracy has been revealed. Entries at column no. 8 reveals that his matriculation certificate was presented before the respondent Company and the figure 1948 -25 years is rounded and a correct date of birth is revealed in Personal Data Form as 18.7.1952 as per matriculation certificate. This aspect of the matter has also not been appreciated by the committee while passing the impugned order dated 29th December, 2006 (Annexure -16) to the memo of the petition. (f) that from the Personal Data Form object no. 3 that the present petitioner has mentioned having a matric certificate of 1968. This form has been collected by the respondent -Company and a correct date of birth could have been inserted right from the inception but as stated hereinabove, otherwise also in the year 1981 already a matriculation certificate was presented by the petitioner and consequently correct date of birth has already been incorporated in the column no. 8 in Personal Data Form (Annexure -A to the counter affidavit). (g) that the respondent -Company has proceeded on the basis of a wrong date of birth of the petitioner as 21st February, 1947 during the course of inquiry in pursuance of an order dated20th September, 2006 passed by this Court in WP(S) No. 5428 of 2005. The petitioner had presented all his documents before the committee. It was not warranted to the committee, to ignore those documents which were already presented by the respondent -Committee in 1981. These were not the new documents specially matriculation certificate which the petitioner had presented before the Company. This aspect of the matter had not properly appreciated by the Company while passing impugned order at Annexure -16. 3) JLJR 726 specially in para 18 that the matriculation certificate ought to have accepted by the concerned authorities. Similarly, it has held in Suresh Lal vs. SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant and Ors. dated 4th July, 2007 in WP(S) No. 6047 of 2006 that the date of birth revealed in matriculation certificate ought to have accepted. (i) in view of these decisions also the order passed by the committee dated 29th of December, 2006 at Annexure -16 deserves to be biased and set aside.
(3.) AS a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondents to rectify the date of birth of the present petitioner i.e. instead of wrongly date 21st February, 1947 it shall now be reflected in all the records of the Company as 18th of July, 1952. Upon correction of this date of birth, all the necessary and consequential orders shall be passed by the responds, within period of eight weeks, upon receipt of this order.;