IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14108 of 2006 SOHAWAN PRASAD SINGH Versus BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS ----------- 3 5.9.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner had approached this High Court earlier by way of filing CWJC No. 5791 of 2004. One of the issues in the said writ application was fixation of the date of birth of the petitioner and also grant of super selection grade by calculating 18 years of service under the respondents. The matter was disposed of on 12.7.2004 directing the respondents to take a decision in this regard. The respondents have passed an order dated 11.1.2005 by virtue of which the date of birth of the petitioner has been fixed as 1.9.1947 which is contained in annexure-1 to the present writ application. Petitioner is not satisfied with this fixation and has come before this High Court challenging this order again. He states that somewhere earlier in the year, 2002 he was subjected to a Medical Board and the Medical Board was of the opinion vide annexure-8 that the age of the petitioner is between 54 to 55 years. According to the petitioner, therefore this should be the basis for fixing his age and date of superannuation. In the normal course of things and the settled legal opinion on the issue the petitioner ought to have been given the lower age determined and his date of retirement ought to have been fixed then. This medical opinion even though available from the - 2 - year 2002 was not made an issue in the earlier writ application. On this issue way back on 24.8.2002 the petitioner had filed an application before the then General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Koshi Electric Supply Region which is contained in annexure-7. Petitioner in his application giving the background to the dispute had categorically stated that the respondents should record 1.9.1947 as his date of birth and he has annexed certain supporting documents which are part and parcel of the present writ application. With the categorical assertion of the petitioner having been accepted by the respondents in annexure-1 the Court has difficulty in allowing him to flaunt another document, which is a Medical Board’s opinion rendered way back on 10.7.2002. It is recorded that the petitioner had filed annexure-7 after the opinion of the Medical Board and despite the Medical Board opinion he was insisting his date of birth as 1.9.1947. If the respondents thereafter had accepted his demand and claim in this regard, the Court will not allow him to reopen the matter by challenging the order contained in annexure-1 by asking for fixation of a new date of birth based on annexure-8. This writ application is not only motivated but totally misplaced on the part of the petitioner. Such kind of litigation must be discouraged. This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)