Letters Patent Appeal No.219 Of 2005 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (PERSONNEL) BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BHAGALPUR RANGE, BHAGALPUR. 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, EASTERN RANGE, BHAGALPUR. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BHAGALPUR. -----------(Appellants) Versus ABDUL QUAYUM KHAN----------------(Respondent) For the Appellant: Chandra Shekhar Singh, A.C. to G.A.VII. For the Respondent:M. Nasrul Hoda Khan, Adv. ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH Navin Sinha & D.K.Singh, JJ. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent came to be appointed as a Constable in the Police on 2.11.1970. His service book recorded his date of birth as 1945 only without any specific date. He has been made to superannuate accordingly on 1.7.2003. The respondent questioned the same in C.W.J.C. No.1958/04 contending that his date of birth was erroneously recorded and had to be corrected to read as 5.5.1952 in accordance with his the Matriculation certificate of 1968. Therefore, he is entitled to continue in service till 5.5.2010. It was further contended that he had produced his Matriculation certificate at the time of his 2 appointment and the authorities had wrongly recorded the date of birth as 1945. The Writ Court therefore rightly held that his date of birth had to be determined in accordance with the Matriculation certificate only. On the basis of the aforesaid it was strenuously contended that the appeal had no merit. Rule-663A of the Bihar Police Manual stipulates a minimum age of 19 years for appointment on the post of a Constable. If the age of the appellant in accordance with the Matriculation certificate is accepted as 5.5.1952 on the date that he came to be appointed i.e. 2.11.1970, he was approximately 18 years and 6 months short of the stipulated age of 19 years. That explains why the service book recorded his date of birth as the year-1945 only. If the Matriculation certificate had been produced by the respondent, he was clearly ineligible and could not have been appointed. The only presumption therefore is of its deliberate suppression at that stage. Once having secured the appointment, the respondent then embarked upon an attempt to extend his service tenure by now contending that his date of birth was 5.5.1952. A correction was then made in his service book by scoring out 1945 and substituting it by 5.5.1952. There are no initials of who made the 3 correction and there is no date when it came to be corrected. The presumption is that the correction has been made clandestinely after his entry into service. This aspect of the matter has not been considered in the judgement under appeal, simply holding Matriculation certificate was conclusive proof of his date of birth to allow the writ petition. Based on the aforesaid discussion, we are satisfied that on the own case of the respondent, as sought to be made out, he was ineligible for appointment on the original date itself. If that be the correct position and he secured appointment by misrepresentation he has got away lightly having superannuated from service honourably. The judgement under appeal is set aside. The appeal stands allowed. Patna High Court/ Dated: 27th April, 2010/ N.A.F.R./KC (Navin Sinha, J.) (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)