IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2642 of 2001 SANJAY KUMAR PATHAK Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate Mr Raju Giri, Advocate For the State : Mr Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC 15 and M/s Bipin Kumar & Bam Shankar, JC to SC 15 For the Board : M/s Bijay Kumar Pandey and Surendra Kumar Advocates --------- 5. 25.03.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel for the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. The controversy in this case relates to the date of birth of the petitioner. From the pleadings of the parties and their submissions it transpires that it is entirely a non issue in so far as the petitioner is concerned, in the present writ application. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a Sanskrit School at Kataibojh in the district of Bhojpur. His appointment letter at Annexure 1 reveals that this appointment was based on his qualification of Madhyama. His degree of Madhyama records his date of birth as 1.1.1958. An issue arose subsequently that his date of birth in his another Matriculation certificate was 17.8.1961. The matter was referred for enquiry. This was confirmed vide Annexures 9 and 14. Annexure 9 specifically states that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher based on his qualification of Madhyama. The second enquiry report at Annexure 14 reiterates that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on basis of his qualification of Madhyama recording his date of birth as 1.1.1958. Learned Counsel for the petitioner before this Court states that he stands by his date of birth 1.1.1958 and makes no issue with regard to the same whatsoever. Learned Counsel for the respondents in support of the impugned order urged that the petitioner had misrepresented his date of birth as that recorded in the Madhyama certificate was at variance with that recorded in his Matriculation certificate. Learned Counsels for the respondents are however unable to satisfy this Court from the impugned order that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher came to be made on basis of his Matriculation certificate and not Madhyama qualification contrary to the findings in the earlier enquiry reports at Annexures 9 and 14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is therefore right in his submission that the appointment having been made on basis of the Madhyama qualification and not on Matriculate qualification, any date mentioned in the Matriculate qualification is of no relevance when he was unequivocally accepting his date of birth as recorded in the Madhyama degree and in pursuance of which appointment came to be made. He additionally rightly pointed out that the petitioner does not stand to gain anything by harping on his Madhyama qualification because in terms of the date of birth accepted by the petitioner before this court as recorded in the Msadhyama Degree the petitioner shall retire three and half years before the purported date in the Matriculation qualification. This Court is satisfied that the impugned order dated 1.2.2001 at Annexure 15 is not sustainable in either event of the matter. The appointment of the petitioner was based on his Madhyama and not on his matriculation qualification. Any date of birth recorded in the latter is of no relevance for the purposes of the present controversy. The petitioner stands to gain nothing. The petitioner unconditionally accepts his date of birth as 1.1.1958 as recorded in the Madhyama qualification. The impugned order is therefore quashed. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)