IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14598 of 2011 Devendra Shukla S/O Late Rajeshwar Shukla, Resident of Mohalla- Bhitri Begampur, P.S.- Chowk, Patna City, District- Patna. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Director General of Police (Home Guard), Bihar, Patna. 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Home Guard, Head Office Chhajjubagh, Patna. 3. The Divisional Commandant, Bihar Home Guard, Alpana Market,Boring Patliputra Road, Patna. 4. The District Commandant, Bihar Home Guard, Patna. ---------------------------------- 2. 06.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.C. to A.A.G. 9 for the State. The petitioner has moved this Court being aggrieved by the fact that he has been made to superannuate with effect from 5.9.2009 treating his date of birth of the year 1951 which according to him ought to be 30.10.1960 as per the matriculation certificate which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner joined as a Home Guard in the year 1978 and thereafter in the year 1980 he is said to have passed his matriculation examination and in the said certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board his date of birth has been recorded as 30.10.1960. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the provisions with regard to date of birth, where the matriculation certificate is available, such date of birth 2 mentioned in the same has to be recorded for the purpose of entry in the service book. He, therefore, contends that the authorities were not correct in treating his date of birth of the year 1951, in view of the fact that his recorded date of birth in the matriculation certificate is 30.10.1960. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-4 which is a representation filed before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bihar Home Guard, Patna (respondent no. 2) in which he has requested to correct his date of birth in the register maintained for the said purpose. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand contends that the petitioner having raised the issue of his date of birth, after crossing the age of superannuation did not deserve any indulgence or relief by this Court. He submits that as per the rules also if there is any error in the date of birth, the same has to be raised and pointed out within 10 years of the person joining his service. In the present case this not having been done, the petitioner is precluded from any relief and has to be satisfied with the date of birth as recorded in the official records. Be that as it may, this Court feels it expedient to dispose off the writ petition with a direction to respondent no. 2 to consider the representation filed 3 by the writ petitioner as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition within two months from the date of production/receipt of a copy of the order upon him. This Court would only observe that such representation should be disposed off by passing a reasoned order without being prejudiced by any observation made in this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed off. Anand Kr. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)