Loading...

Lalan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 September, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Lalan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 September, 2011
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                      CWJC No.3517 of 2011
                  Lalan Kumar, son of Sri Munni Yadav, resident of Barki Delha, P S -
                  Delha, District - Gaya
                                                  Versus
                  1. The State of Bihar.
                  2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of
                     Bihar, Patna.
                  3. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
                  4. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
                  5. The District Education Officer, Gaya, District - Gaya.
                  6. The Principal, Mahabir Inter College Gaya, District - Gaya.
                  7. The Principal, Govt. Middle School Delha, Gaya, District-Gaya.
                                             -----------

04. 20.9.2011 Writ has been filed by the petitioner for a direction

upon the Bihar School Examination Board to issue a certificate

with correct date of birth of the petitioner which is said to be 20 th

February, 1980 instead of 20th January, 1980, which emerges

from the mark-sheet issued by the Bihar School Examination

Board after completion of matriculation examination by the

petitioner in the year 1995.

Contention of the petitioner is that he learnt about

the mistake in the date of birth after he received the so-called

original certificate from the school in 2007 and he immediately

pointed this fact out to the respondent authorities but since they

have refused to accept the claim of the petitioner, writ has been

filed.

Petitioner has tried to press into service at least two

documents which are Annexures 2 and 3. In addition to that,

there are some other annexures which indicate that the date of

birth of the petitioner was 20th February, 1980 and not 20th
2

January, 1980.

From a close perusal of Annexure-2 it is evident that

in the so-called admission register annexed with the writ

application, correction has been made under the signature of

the Principal on 6.11.2007 but the District Education Officer has

put his signature and date on 18.2.2010. This variance and

infirmity has not been explained by the petitioner. Anneuxre-3 is

supposed to be a duplicate but this duplicate document does not

have the full signature and date of the issuing authority.

Therefore, the authenticity of Annexure-3 is also doubtful.

Counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that

under Right to Information Act he has obtained document

which is the tabulation chart and the same has been annexed as

Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. There also change in the

date of birth has been recorded in pen. .

Counsel representing the Bihar School Examination

Board submits that this issue is being raised at a belated stage

when examination was conducted in the year 1995 and the

claim as such was raised in the year 2007, if at all, and writ has

been filed in 2011. Besides the infirmity or variance in the

records which has been noted above, it is also pointed out that

there is variance in the date of the order when so-called

correction was permitted and the date on which the correction

was supposed to have been authorized. This also creates

suspicion with regard to the authenticity of tabulation entry
3

which may be a pointer to some kind of interpolation, which has

been done in the tabulation register.

Since the Court is not convinced with regard to the

authenticity of the documents which have been pressed into

service to bring about change in the date of birth of the

petitioner, the stand of the respondents that it is not permissible

now after so many years is supported by at least a decision of

this Court rendered in CWJC No. 869 of 2007(Annexure-A)

which was affirmed in LPA No. 67 of 2009 (Anneuxre-A/1).

In view of the abvoe there would be problem for

this Court in giving a direction to correct the date of birth of

the petitioner in the above stated circumstance.

Writ has no merit. It is dismissed.

rkp                                           ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)
 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information