Manorama Pandey vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Hon''ble Mr Justice P.P. Bhatt

Petitioner, by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/ order/ direction upon the respondents to indicate/mention the date of birth of the petitioner in praveshika certificate, which is equivalent to matriculation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, certificate issued by the respondent no.3 is without mentioning the date of birth of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.5 has asked the petitioner to furnish the educational certificate so as to submit a proof with regard to the age of the petitioner. Annexure-5 is the order, issued by the respondent no.5, asking the petitioner to produce the said certificate.

On receipt of the said office order, the petitioner moved respondent no.3 with a request to issue certificate incorporating the date of birth. Since it was declined by the respondent no.3, the petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to issue necessary direction to the respondent no.3 for issuance of certificate incorporating the date of birth.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 submitted that there is no practice of the respondent no.3 to incorporate date of birth in a education certificate and therefore, the respondent no.3 cannot be asked to issue such certificate.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 submitted that their record does not indicate the name of the petitioner in admission register and therefore, they are not in a position to certify about the date of birth of the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that this petition is arising out of Annexure-5 but in fact Annexure-5 is not under challenge.

So far as the claim puts forth by the petitioner, with regard to date of birth, is concerned, the same is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction and therefore, it would be appropriate for this Court to direct the respondent no.5 to consider and decide this issue so as to satisfy the requirement of Annexure-5.

Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the papers, it appears that the petitioner is aggrieved by non-issuance of certificate by the respondent no.4. This question arises on the basis of demand made by the respondent no.5. On perusal of Annexure-5, it appears that the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Hazaribagh has demanded educational certificate bearing date of birth of the petitioner. If the respondent no.5 is concerned with the proof regarding date of birth of the petitioner, then in that case, the other legally recognized and valid documents that may be produced by the petitioner with regard to the date of birth can also be considered so as to ascertain the age of the petitioner or to satisfy the requirement regarding proof of date of birth.

With a view to resolve the controversy involved in the matter, respondent no.5 is required to be directed to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of representation that may be submitted by the petitioner along with proof of age, including the documents upon which she relied in the present petition. The petitioner shall submit representation within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. So far as genuineness and validity of these documents is concerned, respondent no.5 shall examine and verify the said documents.The respondent no.5 shall also consider other legally recognize/valid documents, which may be produced by the petitioner with regard to proof of her age so as to have fulfillment of the need/requirement of the Annexure-5. The respondent no.5 upon receipt of such representation along with requisite proof of age, may consider and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within six weeks thereafter.

With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.