IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.2030 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 1180/2006) Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh ,S/o Late Ramjee Singh, Resident of village-Bhotiya,P.S.-Bakhityarpur, District-Saharsa. ……. Petitioner-Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Revenue Department Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa. 4. The Director, Panchayati Raj Padadhikari, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Collector, Supaul. 6. The DistrictPanchyati Raj Officer, Supaul. 7.The Sub Divisional Officer, Triveniganj, Supaul. 8. The Block Development Officer, Chhatapur, Supaul. 9. The Circle Officer, Chhatapur, Supaul. 10. Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Deputy Secretary. …… Respondents/Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2 22.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board. Petitioner entered in service as a Panchayat Sewak on 20th February, 1964.His date of birth was duly recorded in the service book as 2nd February, 1938. In the year 1987-88, the appellant claimed that the date of birth was wrongly recorded and it should be corrected as 3rd February, 1939. The prayer was not allowed till the appellant retired from service in the Month of February, 1996.He is in receipt of pension and other pensionary benefits after superannuation. An Appeal filed before the Commissioner did not get any result. He filed 2 further representation before the District Magistrate and Director,Pancnayat Raj in the year 2002 and 2004, respectively and preferred the connected writ petition in the year 2006, after 10 years of his retirement. The prayer for correction of date of birth duly recorded in the service book has been dismissed by the writ Court with reference to Rule 10 of the Bihar Financial Rules. The order of the writ Court suffers from typographical error in mentioning the relevant financial Rule as Rule 10 in place of Rule 96. Rule 96 debars entertainment of any representation for rectification of mistake in the date of birth as appearing in the records of service, if not submitted within 10 years from the date of entry into the Government service. Only in a very exceptional case, the time limit may be relaxed. It is not in dispute that the appellant was a Matriculate and he signed the service book at the time of entry into service. The explanation that he had has been signed a blank service book does not deserve credence. Whatever be the other evidence available with the appellant regarding date of birth, his own signature in the service book amounts to a clear declaration by the appellant and a belated attempt to re-open the issue can not be entertained in normal circumstances. In 3 any case, there is no special circumstance to treat the appellant’s case as a very exceptional case for relaxing the time limit. That could have been considered if he was an illiterate person incapable of reading the entries in the service book. We find no merit in this Appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed. Sudha (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)