CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.9821 OF 1995 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. ____ Dharmshila Devi, widow of late Nageshwar singh, resident of village sajanpura via Bahera, P.S. Bahera, District – Darbhanga. _______ Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Director General cum Inspector General of Bihar, Patna. 3. A.I.G., Headquarters, Bihar, Patna. 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range. 5. Superintendent of Police, Gaya. _______ Respondents For the petitioner: Mr. Pramod Rajpati. For the State : None. _____ P r e s e n t The Hon`ble Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi ____ Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J. The writ application was filed by original petitioner Nageshwar Singh, who died during the pendency of the application. Dharmshila Devi, wife of the original petitioner was substituted in his place vide order dated 1.2.2008. 2. Original petitioner entered into service as a constable on 2.11.1961. At that point of time he was a non-matriculate as he appeared in the matriculation examination but failed. He accepted his appointment which is not disputed. Subsequently he is supposed to have acquired higher education equivalent to matriculation and he even got promotion to the post of ASI. After 2 having worked for more than 30 years, as has been pleaded in the writ application that he had an opportunity to look into the service book on transfer to Gaya. To his shock and horror he realized that almost three years have been taken away from his age having implication for duration of service will be entitled to render under the State. In 1993, he represented before the authority for correction of the date of birth on the basis of so-called admit card, which was issued by the Bihar School Examination Board for his failed attempt in the matriculation examination. The evidence thereof is annexures 2 and 3. The respondents refused to accept the position or at least did not entertain the request of the original petitioner for a correction in the date of birth. This was the reason for filing of writ before the High Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to correct the date of birth even now. 3. According to the pleading of erstwhile petitioner, the actual date of birth should be 2.1.1943 whereas the service record only indicated it as 1940. Petitioner has tried to corroborate annexures 2 and 3 by the matriculation certificate which was issued by Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University. 4. Correction of date of birth or entries made in the service-book is governed by Rule 96 of the Bihar Financial Rules. Entry in 3 the service-book is not amenable to changes in the normal circumstances. Any defect by way of clerical error can be corrected within ten years thereof. It is not the case of the husband of the petitioner that he made a request before the respondents within the requirement of Rule 96 as mentioned above. His story that he was not the custodian of the service-book or that he came to know about the same after 30 years of service is far fetched and unbelievable. Obviously, it is an after thought to extend the period of service by the original petitioner when he was inching towards the evening of his life and superannuation. The factum of knowledge after 30 years is difficult to be readily accepted and taken cognizance of. If the husband of the petitioner was totally illiterate, then his submission could have been entertained but he was not an illiterate constable when appointed and had even earned promotion to the post of ASI. 5. It is a misplaced and mischievous kind of application lacking bonafide. The same is dismissed but without cost. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) Patna High Court: The 6th of July, 2010. R. K. Pathak(NAFR).