IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.661 of 2009 VINAYA KUMAR DAS, S/O LATE BHOLA DAS, R/O VILLAGE-CHAIDHA, P.O. BABU BAGICHA, P.S. CHAUTHAM (EARLIER MANSHI), DISTRICT- KHAGARIA (EARLIER MONGHYR) -PETITIONER/APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. THE PRINCIPAL, CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR, FOREST, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, GAYA FOREST DIVISION, GAYA. 5. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, GAYA CIRCLE, GAYA. -RESPONDENTS ******* For the Appellant : Mr. Birju Prasad For the State : Mr. A.K. Pandey, GA-7. 3 14.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. The appellant has been made to superannuate on attaining usual age of superannuation on the basis of initial entry in service book showing his date of birth as 1.1.1943 with an endorsement that the same was as per School Certificate. The petitioner preferred writ petition claiming that subsequent entry in the service book showing his date of birth as 1.1.1950 is correct and on that basis he was entitled to 2 a further service of about seven years. The case of the writ petitioner / appellant is that 1.1.1950 is his correct date of birth as per transfer certificate issued by a private School contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition which appears to have been issued in the month of October, 2003, that is much after he was made to superannuate by Annexure-3 dated 16.9.2003. The Photostat copy of the service book, annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, shows that 1.1.1943, as per School Certificate, has been penned through and below that 1.1.1950 has been written with an endorsement ‘as per affidavit sworn’. But that endorsement has also been subsequently penned through. The claim of the writ petitioner / appellant, on the basis of a School transfer certificate, also appears to be after thought in view of Annexure-2 to the writ petition which is a medical certificate in support of writ petitioner’s claim of age. The School transfer certificate submitted prior to the issuance of Annexure-3 admittedly showed that at the age of eleven years writ petitioner had left that School while reading in Class-10. Subsequently he had obtained 3 Annexure-5 which is explained by the Authorities of the School by taking the stand that the initial certificate issued prior to October, 2003 suffered from a clerical mistake. Without going into many disputed questions, we are satisfied from the perusal of the writ petitioner’s service book that there was no reliable and justified material to delete 1.1.1943 which appear as the date of birth of the writ petitioner / appellant originally and to substitute the same with another date that is 1.1.1950. The whole exercise done much after the writ petitioner / appellant’s service book have been opened, does not inspire confidence and has rightly not been accepted by the writ Court. In the facts of the case, we see no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.) AAhmad