Kumari Bibha Choudhary vs The State of Bihar

Mr. Hemant Gupta, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents.

The order dated 6th of August, 2015 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11289 of 2014 is the subject matter of challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

The learned Single Bench has given liberty to the appellant to avail the remedy of suit in respect of the dispute regarding date of birth.

As per the appellant her date of birth is 1st of March, 1966 but the same was incorrectly recorded in the Madhyama Examination Certificate in which she appeared in the year 1981 as 1st of March, 1960. In respect of such certificate (Annexure-5) the appellant is said to have submitted representation on 09th of May, 2007 to correct her date of birth in the said document. In terms of a direction of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3958 of 2008, the appellant was given liberty to submit representation before the University with all supporting documents and the University was directed to dispose of such representation after proper inquiry within a period of 12 weeks. It is thereafter, the inquiry has been conducted by the University and the report submitted on 13th of April, 2012 that the Examination Form (ijh{kkosnu&i=) records her date of birth as 1st of March, 1966 by overwriting. It is mentioned that in the first and second Tabulation Register, the date of birth is clearly mentioned as 1st of March, 1960. Still further, the photo copy of the original certificate records the date of birth as 1st of March, 1960. Therefore, the Committee concluded that there is tampering in the date of birth, which is on account of overwriting.

It may be stated that the year 1960 can be tampered with figure �zero� to read as 1966. It is on account of such tampering; the appellant seeks to take benefit in the present Letters Patent Appeal. Perusal of Annexure-5 shows that the appellant was a student of Lalji Sanskrit High School, Baruraj, Muzaffarpur in the year 1981. The photo copy of the certificate is on record, wherein it is mentioned in words and figures the date of birth as 1st of March, 1960. With such clear date of birth mentioned in the certificate, appended by the appellant herself, it is impossible to return a finding that her date of birth is 1st of March, 1966. It is a clear case of tampering in the date of birth so as to draw undue advantage by the appellant.

In view thereof, we find that there is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal. The same is, thus, dismissed.