s:a|5B»tiYg|?n?.?|.-a^^^^ ^•^€^^^. SS^^E^5 p^-' "m'"":': • '^^^.^'.l.·-· Qg.ata...—— BeforeHon'bleHiahCourtofChhattisciarhatBilaspur Writ Appeal f~^- IWWTJi^ APPELLANT Petitioner before the Single Bench RESPONDENTS ^,^6 ^^r ' ^~€^ 2-'t iH ' IVIuchhan S/o Amzad Ali, Aged abdut 52 years, Clerk Grade -II, Bijuri Colliery, R/o Bijuri Colliery, Hasdeo area, Distt.:Shahdol(M.P.) VERSUS 1. IVIanaging Director, The South Eastern Coal fields Limited Head Office, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. ChiefGenerallVlanager(Adm) South Eastern Coal Fields Limited, SeepatRoad, Bilaspur(C.G.) ,3. ChiefGeneralIVIanager Hasdeo Area, Bijuri Colliery, Distt.: Shahdol (M.P.) 4. Dy. General Manager / South Eastern Coal fields Limited Bijuri, Up Kshetra Bijuri, Distt. - Shahdol (M.P.) u^ ^ t91- -" /^k c^i^-M- o^- C &7 ^d--l-^^4^ WRIT APPEAL AI^SINGOlSr OFANORDER PASSED BY HON'BLftiH^''' [f*J^C<^ JUDGE IN W.P. N0. 6356/2005 DATED 29.6.2006 IN WHICH THE HON'BLE JUDGE HAD DISPOSED OF THE PETITION ON THE BASIS OF AFTER HAVING GIVEN SOME^OBSERVATIONS AND DIRECTIONS AND THAT APPELLANT BEING NOT SATiSFIEDWJTH THE ORDER FILED A REVIEW PETITION N0. 2/2006 WHICH WAS ALSO DISPOSED OF BY HON'BLE JUDGE JUSTICE SHRI L.C. BHADOO ON 2.11.2007 AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE REDRESSAL OF THE GRIEVANCES THIS APPEAL IS FILED FOR THE GRANT QF PROPER RELIEF v^^ ?^ ?!IIqraq HICH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR SLBi Appellant Respondents Hon'ble Shri I.M. Ouddusi, Hon'bto Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, WritADpeal No.07/2008 Muchhan Vs., Managing Director, South Eastern Coal Fields Umited and others Appearance: Mr. B.K. Chakrabarty, counsel for the appellant. Mr. P. S. Koshy, counsel for the respondents. Writ Appeal under Section 2 11) of the Chhattisaarh Hiah Court fApoeal to Division Benchl Act. 2006 ORAL JUDGMENT (22.04.2010) Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed agalnst the impugned order dated 29 of June, 2006 passed by the learned Slngle Judge in W.P.No.6356/2005 disposing of the said writ petition with the direction that the Age Determination Committee shall determine the age of the writ appetlant and hls case shall be referred to the Medical Board for examination in accordance with the requirement of "Medical Jurisprudence" and the Medical Board after medically examining hlm in accordance with the requirement of Jurisprudence determine the age and the same shall be forwarded to the Age Determfnation Committee then the Age Detennination Committee after ,iP«"S ^"!€\ €;»—.,.. I considering the certificates submitted by the writ appellant, the age recorded In Form-B and the opinion of the Medical Board shatt declde the date of birth of the appellant and the same shall be finat. 3. Thereafter, the writ appellant flled a revlew petltjon, which was dlsmlssed on 02.11.2007. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed in the year 1972 as Clerk Grade II at Bljuri colliery in South Eastern Coat Fields Ltd. His date of birth was recorded as 01.07.1949. Thereafter, a notice was issued by the employer invitlng applicatlons with certiflcates till 21.12.2002 for correctlon of date of births. The appellant with an intention to get his date of birth altered from 1.07.1949 to 02.04.1953 moved an application but the same was not done. Hence, the writ petition was filed. 5. We do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the ieamed single judge. It may be noticed that the impugned order of the learned single Judge has been complied with by the respondents and accordlng to the opinion of Medlcal Board, the age of We appellant was about 60 years on the date of examlnation. The appeltant was sent for medical examination on 03.07.2006. With reply the respondents have flled a document regarding verlflcation of qualiflGation from Deputy Secretary, Bihar Vidyalay Parlksha Samiti, T'"- Patna in respect of the Certificate/Mark-Sheet submitted by the appellant before the respondents. The Deputy Secretary of the Blhar Vidyalay Pariksha Samiti, Patna, informed that Roll Code as well as Serial Number mentioned in front of the name of the appellant was fake as at that serial number and rgll code, name of one Ramvruksh Rai has been mentioned in the records. Therefore, the certiflcate/mark-sheet submitted by the appellant was a fake otie. 6. In view of the facts and drcumstances of the case referred to above, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 29.06.2006 passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is devoid of merits and is, therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- PrashantKumarMishra Judge —i' Rao