IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. (M/S) 1743 OF 2006 Dhirendra Rawat ………….Petitioner. Versus Secretary, Uttaranchal Education & Examination Board, Ram Nagar, Nainital and others …….Respondents. Present: Mr. R. S. Sammal, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Mr. Manoj Sah, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Seema Sirohi, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. R.S. Sammal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Sah, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Seema Sirohi, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Certificate dated 20.09.2005 passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Nainital, whereby the age of respondent no. 4 was declared to be about 18 years and also praying to direct respondent no. 2 i.e. Additional Secretary, Uttaranchal Education & Examination Board, Ram Nagar, District Nainital to conduct an inquiry to determine the date of birth of the petitioner. Facts of the case are that respondent no.4 was an accused in a Criminal Case registered at Police Station Haldwani under Section 302 I.P.C. During trial respondent no.4 raised a plea that he is a juvenile and hence claimed relief under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The matter was sent for examination to Juvenile Justice Board, which vide its order dated 3.3.2006 gave a finding that respondent no.4 is a juvenile. This order was challenged before the 2 learned Sessions Court and order of the Juvenile Justice Board, whereby respondent no.4 was declared juvenile, was upheld vide order dated 8.5.2006. Both these orders were again challenged in a criminal revision being Criminal Revision No. 124 of 2006 Dhirendra Singh Rawat and Jitendra @ Jeetu and another. This Court vide its order dated 19.2.2011 has dismissed the revision and has upheld the order of Sessions Judge dated 8.5.2006. In other words, respondent no.4 has been declared a juvenile. The petitioner primarily seeks to quash the certificate of the Chief Medical Officer on the basis of which respondent no.4 was treated to be juvenile cannot be looked into by this Court in as much as this Court has also held in Criminal Revision No. 124 of 2006 that the accused has rightly been declared to be a juvenile inter alia on the basis of medical certificate. Consequently, another prayer seeking direction of having been inquiry done against the Uttaranchal Education and Examination Board as to how they have wrongly determined the date of the birth of respondent no.4 cannot be again looked into in as much as the certificate issued by the Uttaranchal Education and Examination Board pertaining to the date of birth of the candidate, has been held to be correct. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in view of the decision of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 124 of 2006. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 19.2.2011 Kuldeep