Mahabir Mandal vs State of Bihar

The petitioner was employed in the Commercial Taxes Department of the Bihar Government and retired in the year 1975. Before his retirement, he had moved the State Government for revising his date of birth as recorded in the service record unsuccessfully. The prayer was rejected by the order as contained in Annexure

The present application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the same.

The date of birth of the petitioner in the school where he was initially admitted was mentioned as 1st February, 1917. He passed the matriculation examination in the year 1937 and the date of birth mentioned in-the certificate also shows 1st February, 1917. It is the petitioner''s case that he comes from a very backward family where education was scarce and the petitioner did not know as to whether his correct date of birth was entered in the school register or the matriculation certificate. In the year 1973, he learnt for the first time from his father, who is still alive, that his correct date of birth was 1st February, 1919 and not 1st February, 1917 as was wrongly mentioned in the matriculation certificate. The petitioner relies upon an affidavit which is said to have been sworn by his father in the year 1938 stating that the petitioner was born on 1st February, 1919. A true copy of this affidavit, dated 16.5.1938 is annexed to this writ application as Annexure 3 Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the petitioner has contended that the Government was not right in rejecting the claim of the petitioner by the order as mentioned in Annexure 1 without assigning proper reasons therefor.

It is stated in the writ application that the petitioner had an elder brother named Nandlal Mandal, who is now dead and when the matriculation certificate of the petitioner was received by Nandlal Mandal the error in the date of birth was appreciated and accordingly the petitioner''s father Gyanchand Mandal sworn an affidavit as in Annexure 3. This document did not see the light of the day earlier than 1973 when the petitioner is said to have been informed by his father and is said to have discovered the affidavit in the documents belonging to the family. No occasion has been mentioned in the writ application in which the alleged affidavit was sworn. If the purpose was to get the matriculation certificate corrected, admittedly no such step was taken. After the affidavit was made ready, it was kept along with other documents and nobody in the family bothered about the same before 1973. The petitioner wants us to believe that the whole thing was done by his elder brother and father and he was kept in dark about it. If the case of the petitioner is correct, he was the only person educated in the family and It was expected of him to have learnt about the affidavit when it was made. Besides, it is stated in paragraph 10 (i) of the writ petition that the petitioner''s father is "completely illiterate". How is it there, that the affidavit (Annexure 3) bears his signature as per his own pen? These circumstances do not show that the petitioner has made out a correct case for revision of his age.

Mr. Mukherjee argued that an inquiry should have been made by the department concerned before rejecting the petitioner''s representation. It is not the case of the petitioner that he wanted to lead any evidence in support of his representation which was rejected or that he wanted to argue the matter and he was not given such an opportunity. He had submitted a representation in this regard and it was considered on merit. The order in Annexure 1 stated that after considering the question raised sympathetically, the Government did not agree with the petitioner. The matriculation certificate and the service record of the petitioner consistently indicated that the petitioner was actually born in 1917. Apart from the affidavit relied upon by the petitioner before us, no other document or material including a horoscope has been referred to either before us or before the department concerned. We in the circumstances do not agree with the petitioner that the State Government committed any illegality in dismissing the representation by the order as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application. The writ application accordingly fails and is dismissed, but tails and is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.