IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4825 of 2002 SRI KUMAR JHA son of late Hari Shankar Jha, resident of village Bardaha P. O. Bardaha P. S. Babubarhi District- Madhubani. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga, Bihar through its Vice-Chancellor. 3. The Registrar Kameshwar Singh, Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. 4. The Examination Controller Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Kameshwar Nagar Darbhanga. 5. The Principal, Madneshwar Nath Sanskrit, College, Madneshwar Asthan Madhubani District- Madhubani. … Respondents. ----------- 5. 07.07.2010 Heard Sri Vishwanath Pratap Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shivesh Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the University. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of a writ of certiorari or an appropriate writ for quashing the letter no. 3/42/02 dated 16.3.2002 issued under the signature of the examination Controller, respondent no. 4 of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga, as contained in Annexure-8 by which the date of birth of the petitioner has been accepted as 19.2.1942 instead of 19.2.1948 and also for issuance of a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ commanding the respondents to make correction in the original utter Madhyama Certificate of the petitioner regarding date of birth as 19.2.1948 in place of 19.2.1942 and to treat the date of birth of the 2 petitioner as 19.2.1948 and accordingly to make correction in the service record of the petitioner about his date of birth as 19.2.1948 to give the petitioner the consequential benefit of the same and also for issuance of any other order or orders or directions for which the petitioner is found legally entitled.” Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is true that the petitioner‟s earlier date of birth in the record of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University (hereinafter referred to as the „University‟) on the basis of the record and information furnished by the petitioner and the school from which he had appeared in the Navin Madhyama Examination held in the year 1964 was 19.2.1942 but then the petitioner had subsequently filed an application for change of such date of birth before the University on the basis of certain documents for its being recorded as 19.2.1948. From the pleadings it is also clear that the petitioner was employed as lecturer in Sanskrit College, Madneshwar Asthan and he had retired from service of the college and the University on 28.2.2002 on attaining sixty years of age as per his original date of birth recorded in his 3 Madhyama Certificate of 1964. Thus the impugned order passed on 16.3.2002 after his retirement from service could not have yielded to any benefit to him as his employer was bound by the recorded date of birth in his Madhyama Certificate and filing of this belated writ petition was itself misconceived. In the opinion of this Court, the University after recording 19.2.1942 as the date of birth of the petitioner as declared by the petitioner himself at the time of two successive University Examination of 1962 and 1964 of Purva Madhyama and Uttar Madhyama had got a little option but to stick to their records. In fact the belated effort of the petitioner in seeking change of his date of birth after 16 to 18 years in 1980 and his again remaining silent for next 22 years till passing of the impugned order by itself would create a grave suspicion to his such belated claim. That being so, at least this Court would find no error in the impugned order dated 16.3.2002 communicating to the petitioner that from the records available in the University, the date of birth of the petitioner on the basis of his own declaration being 4 19.2.1942 in the year 1964 could not be changed after long lapse of time in the year 2002. If the petitioner however was/is so sanguine about his date of birth being 19.2.1948 and not 19.2.1942, it was/is always open to him to seek a declaration from the competent Civil Court by impleading both the University and/or any other person including his employer against whom the petitioner would have liked to use changed date of birth. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)