IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 4277 of 2009
Uma Shankar Singh ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Central Coalfields Limited & Ors.... ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL HARKAULI
------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Krishna Murari
For the Respondents: Mr. Ananda Sen
------
02/28.10.2009
The petitioner has approached this court in the discretionary
and equitable writ jurisdiction for rectification of his Date of Birth
from 1.10.1950 to 10.8.1955. This writ petition has been filed in
the year 2009 when the petitioner is approaching his age of
superannuation. The foundation of his claim is a matriculation
certificate in which the petitioner’s Date of Birth is mentioned as
10.8.1955. The petitioner has placed reliance upon a Full Bench
decision of this Court in the case of ‘Kamta Pandey-Vs- BCCL &
Ors. reported in 2007 (3) JCR 681’.
The said decision emphasises the relevance of the Date of
Birth recorded in the matriculation certificate, but on the facts of
the present case, I do not find that decision to be applicable
because admittedly the petitioner was employed in the Central Coal
Fields Limited which is a Government undertaking on 17.8.1972. If
the Date of Birth espoused by the petitioner is accepted to be
correct then on the date of appointment the petitioner would have
been less than 18 years of age.
It appears to be quite apparent that the petitioner in order
to get that employment at that time misrepresented his Date of
Birth as 1.10.1950 which was accordingly recorded in the service
record and the employment was granted. After obtaining
employment and serving for some time, the petitioner moved for
rectification of the Date of Birth on the basis of matriculation
certificate which though obtained earlier but was filed later,
meaning thereby which was withheld, for obvious reason, at the
time of obtaining employment. The petitioner’s contention that the
matriculation certificate was obtained later is an eye wash. Marks
sheets are supplied immediately after matriculation result and
marks sheet also contain the Date of Birth. Therefore, this excuse
of obtaining matriculation certificate later is just to cover-up the
2.
earlier misconduct of the petitioner in giving wrong Date of Birth
for the purpose of obtaining employment before he became eligible
age-wise.
Considering the fact that the petitioner is under the
discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, it would not be appropriate
to allow him to have an advantage at both ends, first at the time of
obtaining employment and thereafter getting superannuation
extension.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an
unreported decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated
10.7.2009 pronounced on 31.7.2009 in W.P.(S) 4181 of 2008 in
paragraph 18 of which the aspect of initial appointment at an age
less than 18 years was examined. The facts of that decision were
that the establishment where the employment took place was
under a private management and therefore, the strict age of 18
years for getting employment was not found necessarily to be
applicable. In the present case, it has not been shown that on the
date when the petitioner obtained employment in the Central Coal
Fields Limited i.e. 17.8.1972, the Central Coal Fields Limited was
under any private management which could have permitted
employment of a person who was less than 18 years of age.
Therefore, the decision of the learned Single Judge also is quite
distinguishable.
Considering the circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise
my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner on the facts
of this case.
This writ petition is dismissed.
(Sushil Harkauli, J.)
Sudhir/FA