<q .f (^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P. N0l£?fc9/2002 PETITIONER .^^ ^^yy' .^%^^y-" Ramsurat s/o Badri.aged about 54 years Occupation - Loader cum dresser, B. Seam Colliery S.E.C.L., Hasdeo area, ^' RESPONDENTS ^' '•^ Distt.Korea(C.G.) VERSUS 1. ChiefGeneralManager, S.E.C.L. Hasdeo area, Distt. Korea (C.G.) 2. Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Hasdeoarea, Distt. Korea(C.G.) 3. Manager, Jhagrakhand Sub-Area, B.Seam Colliery S.E.C.L., Hasdeo area, Distt. Korea (C.jQ;) .^^^-^^' __^__ _..L... WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA-: XI-HC-22 SI^T^T ^jFF^ijl^T ^(ia ^Hl<=h h '3~aEr ^ww^ ^-a1^4j<o, ^i1yy ^W^tl Sb*1icb 3i7^r XR^. ^.^....\^..^.. ^9 '^ 200 tN^^' ^S^f ^cllW <ii^a preftrred 1|ie 7-5-2004 J Shri K.N. Nande, counselj Shri H.B. Agrawal, couns^l The petitioner has 226/227 of the Constitution 4-1-2002/8-1-2002 sent by t^ Seam/ CoIIiery, Hasdeo Area, was informed that he will be re| The petitioner's petitionj Dresser under the office of Seam, Coiliery, S.E.C.L., Hasd^o is educated up to 10th standaj Examination in the year 1964 |;< and Intermediate Education U of birth is recorded as 12-7a|; Annexure-P. The petitioner had stu| Coiiege 'Bakhira-Basti'. A charj; Principai of the said Coiieg^ Annexure-P/1 in which aiso hil In the said schoo!Ythe <»)i<4i<n<i1i ^Na?'^fe^ <i^i+^i< ^^qPOTS^T for the petitioner, ^i for respondents. this writ petition under Articies |of India challenging the letter dated le A^anager/ Jhagrakhand Sub Area B, District Korea whereby the petitioner tiring w.e.f, 30th June 2002. iis that he was appointed as Loader curn Manager, Jhagrakhand Sub-Area, B. Area, District Korea, The petitioner 'd and he had passed the High Schooi :onducted by the Board of High School lP. and in the said certificate his date 1948. Copy of the said certificate is (. pied in Veni Madhav (5opj Nath Inter ^cter certificate was aiso issued by the on 23-7-99, copy of the same js date of birth is recorded as 12-7-4B. petitic|ner studied from the year 1961a62 to 1:\'. XI-HC-22 311^^1 foi^ 3ii^i 's^^i^? ^titi ^^ ^\^w% ^-^ww, fadiyy 3irit?T 't^r^? ^l^<^1 ^»licb<<<*"**'*"0"9*'*' "^T^ 200 "l^^r' ^ff^i ^-wi^R ^i^a z- retir|ig ir< 1965-66. Scholar Register f<| by the said school is Annexui the petitioner was recorded b' The petitioner was shocked | Manager that he wili be of birth has been recorded irl shown as l-a7al942 whereas/ 12-7-i948. The petitioner.made re| but the respondents are not of the petitioner, therefore, Return has been filed has been mentioned that thel statement of the petitioner i that his date of birth was r4 aged 29 years at the tim^ opportunity of age determinc^t petitioner had not avaiied ancJ cannot be aliowed to chalien<i< was mentioned in the Annel issued at the will of guardiarj cb<<ii<n€iii ^i*icii^ fai<3 ifai^K iT3?f^P:T3TI^r |rm and Transfer Re9ister Forrn issued le-P/3. The incorrect date of birth of the respondents in his serylce records. after receiving the letter from the on 30th June 2002. Incorrect date the service record and which has been |i fact, the petitioner's date of birth Js ^resentations Annexures-P/7, P/8 & P/9 ^repared to consider the representation notice dated 4-1-2002 be quashed, |n behaif of the respondents in which it |date of birth was recorded as per the |himself, therefore, he cannot contend corded incorrectiy. The petitioner was of entering into the service. The was giyen in the year 1987 but the he remained silent. Therefore, now, he |e the order. His correct date of birth <ure-R/2 dated 15-7-87. The T.C. was in the year 1967 while second T.C. was the icfrion XI-HC-22 3TI^T'^T h^ 3?n^r 5h^i®t>^f^a ^^ ^NM^ ^•a1^^<$, fa^i^y 3?T^W '^^ MWWI ^qj^—--——•-•———^^ 200 l^sr' 37T^r ^<tTW ^rf^T 9iven on 24-11-2001, in coiu T<n of date of birth in word "eight" there written omittin9 "o", ther doubtful. The date of biri signed by the petitioner in <^Mt<rt<fll 'W:I^f ^fe^ Tf^R^ ^ ^qrf^FT 3T?^T is overwriting, it can be inf^rred that while writing two "Eig" has been is liable to be dismissed. I have heard the learrjed counsel for the parties. sfore, the genuineness of document is t-h of the petitioner is 1-7-42, which was lis service record; therefore, the petition date of birth as 12-7-48. Anenxure-R/2 is concerned petitioner is mentioned as respondents and not by the of the petitioner. On the other handl submitted that at the tim^ same was received by the |'h@ petitioner submitted that on 15-7-B87 to give information regarding the date of pnd form was served upon him and on the I- form after filiing the same and he kept Learned counseJ for the petitioner was required) birth and other particulars same day he submitted tha| copy of the same with him ^hich is Annexure-P/2 in which he fitled his Counsei further submitted that as far as /in that form the date of birth of the 1-7-42, GS the same was filied by the petitioner ond thort too without knowledge |, Mr. A9rawGi counset for respondents of preparation of the service record the petitioner had not submitj'ed his matricuiation certificate and the petitioner on 15-5-2002 o^d the petition XI-HC-22 3?TT^T'^T 'f^N'^n^T 5^*iict» ^Ra A. ^- "s^ r<4i^j<n^, ^•a1<i<i<o, f^<n(^^< 3TT^?T 'q^? WHCTT^RTc^ . "V^ 200 •I^^T' 3^RT'^TT^R: ^rf^TT A- CM^{<rt<i1i 'HPT^f ^ fs^ <P»I^I< ^ 3FlP<R ^TI^T was filed on 20-5-2002 aftef taking this document. He further submitted that in Form No.B, t| date of birth is recordedas 1-71-42. Having heard the learr|ed counsel for the parties/1 haye perused the records. A peru^ of birth entered in Form No.-Q concerned employee of the re| ie service record of the petitioner, the |at of the records shows that the date and Annexure-R/2 are entered by the spond^nts and in contradiction of that the petitioner has submitted |iis document regarding his educationai qualificQtion and in scholar re^ister and transfer register Form the date of birth is recorded as j2a7-48 and the same date of birth is recorded in the High School Cer Looking to the above ci parties, there was dispute receivin9 the notice by the pet matter as per clGuse-B-Oi) Determination Committee, In birth of the petitioner the pro referred to the Age Dete^ ^ificate. |>ntradictory record submitted by the \€Qard'mg the date of birth and on tioner he made representations, but to no avail. In this case, the re^pondents ought to have referred the |of Instruction Np.76 to the Age brder to ascertain the correct date of 3er course i$ that the matter should be wination Committee, as prima facie genuineness of the matriculati|on certificate and trGnsfer certificate cannot be doubted. XI-HC-22 ^n^r'^r f<tlJ<=h 3i1^T ^^i^ ^f^a <-. Barve^ + ^ ^^ r^\^w^ ^^^w, f®i^nr^< 3^?T "q^? WH^l ^^^....*......————.—••—^F^ ^^ I^^T' 3TT^T "^HW ^f^a -s^- In the result, the writ directed to refer the mallter Determination Committee and decide the age of the petition^r after getting him medically 4; from today and the decisi< Committ'ee shall be final, II succeeds in contention regardi he wiil be entitled for atl the 28-6-2002. Original certificates su! be returned to respective part^ With the directions aforfesdd Parties are entitled for ^etition is allowed. The respondents are of the petitioner to the Age |the Age Determination Committee shall i^r after going through the records and ^xamined within a period of 3 months }n taken by the Age Determination is made ciear that if the petitioner i|ig his date of birth i.e. 12-7-1948 then l^enefits as per this Courfs order dated chl^fd41'1 'RTWif Tt fe^ •[f^H^R ^ 3?rf^TR[ ^TI^T |mitted the petitioner and respondents 1-^s in a sealed cover. r^said, the petition is disposed of. <|ertified copy of this order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [^^fe^