IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14442 of 2009 1. NUSRAT PERVEEN W/O MD. TAMIZUDDIN, R/O VILL- BAURA, P.S-KADWA DISTT-KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR PRIMARY EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIAHR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KATIHAR, DISTT- KATIHAR 4. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER KATIHAR 5. THE DISTRICT SUFPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION KATIHAR 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KADWA BLOCK, DISTT- KATIHAR 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER KADWA BLOCK, DISTT- KATIHAR 8. THE CHAIRMAN SIKCHA COMMITTEE OF PRIMARY TEACHERS GRAM PANCHAYAT BHOGAON, BLOCK- KADWA, DISTT- KATIHAR 9. THE MUKHIYA OF GRAM PANCHAYAT BHOGAON BLOCK KADWA, DISTT-KATIHAR 10. THE PANCHAYAT SACHIEV, GRAM PANCHAYAT BHOGAON, BLOCK KADWA, DISTT- KATIHAR 11. THESECRETARY BIHAR STATE MADARSA EDUCATION BOARD, PATNA 12. NASEEMA KHATOON, D/O MD. ZEAUL HAQUE, R/O VILL- BAURA, P.S-KADWA, DISTT- KATIHAR 13. THE MEMBER OF DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMEENT APPELLATE TRIBUNALS KATIHAR ----------- 2. 02.02.2010 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing of the order dated 17.08.2009 passed by the Member, District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Katihar in Appeal Case No. 1530/09. By the impugned order, the appeal preferred by the petitioner, challenging the appointment of Naseema Khatoon (respondent No. 12), has been dismissed. The selection/ appointment of respondent No. 12 was 2 challenged by the petitioner on the ground that by misrepresenting her date of birth, she got the appointment. In fact, in one school’s regist3r, her date of birth is 07.05.1992 and in another school, it is mentioned as 31.03.1987. Since one person cannot have two dates of birth, as such, her appointment which she got on the basis of misrepresenting her date of birth should be cancelled. The next stand which has been taken by the petitioner is that simultaneously, a person cannot be regular student of two institutions. So far the two dates of birth are concerned; this has nothing to do with the appointment of the respondent No. 12. On perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, it transpires that in her application, the respondent No. 12 has given her qualification as Fokania which is equivalent to matriculation. In her Fokania certificate, her date of birth is 31.03.1987. It is well settled that the date of birth given in the Matriculation or equivalent Certificate is the actual proof of the date of birth and age. The appointment letter had been issued in favour of respondent No. 12, Naseema Khatoon, considering her date of birth as 31.3.1987. On account of this date of birth, she was major at the time of appointment. Rightly, the Appellate Tribunal has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. I do not find any error in the impugned order and accordingly, this application is dismissed. AKV/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)