- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7188 of 2009 Krishna Yadav @ Jay Krishna Singh Yadav, Son of Late Shri Bhagwan Yadav, Resident of village-Niajipur Lal Singh ka Dera, P.O.-Gangauli, P.S.-Semari, District-Buxar. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The Union of India through Defence Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The Defence Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi. 3. The GOC-IN-C-, Armoured Corps Centre, Ahmednagar, Maharastra. 4. The Officer-in-charge, Records, Armoured Corpos, Ahmednagar, Maharastra. 5. The Commandant, 43 Armoured Regiment, Bikaner. -Respondents. ----------- 02 30.06.2009 The writ petitioner states that his father late Bhagwan Yadav died in harness in active service in the Indian Army. His mother’s name is Kaushila Devi and he is the eldest son of the said Bhagwan Yadav. When his father died in the year 2001, he was minor. On attaining majority, he applied through his father Regiment being 43 Armoured Regiment for compassionate appointment. It is his case that he was duly sponsored but when he appointed for appointment at Ahmed Nagar he was not so appointed on the ground that as per the Army records of his late father the eldest son’s name was Jay Krishan Singh Yadav with date of birth 12th July 1987, but as per the matriculation certificate and the sponsorship certificate petitioner’s name was Krishan Yadav and date of birth was 10th October 1989, though, the parentage was the same. It is primarily because of these two vital differences the petitioner has not been - 2 - considered for compassionate appointment. Petitioner asserts that when the petitioner was born the petitioner’s late father made the declaration of name and date of birth, but subsequently when the petitioner was admitted to school petitioner’s late father shorten the name of Krishan Yadav and gave the date of birth as 10th October 1989 in stead of 12th July 1987, as declared to the Army. Petitioner further asserts that he was and is the eldest son of late Bhagwan Yadav and Kaushila Devi. In my view, because of these apparent contradictions, the respondents cannot be faulted in not accepting the petitioner’s application for appointment finally. However, it would be open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps for correction of his name and date of birth in the High School records or if so advised and if permissible in the records of the Army and on such correction being made through competent authority/Court it would be open to the Army to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)