IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.582 of 2008 SHEO DUSHADH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 30/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was appointed as Dafadar and acquired the status of a ‘Choukidar’ as a government servant under a policy decision. His service book was opened in 1990 which records his date of birth, incorrectly as urged. The claim is based on a School Leaving Certificate which finds no mention in the service book at all, otherwise signed by him. This Court is satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case the nature of controversy sought to be created by the petitioner is a disputed question of fact with regard to his date of birth which cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. If he had an educational certificate available with him on the date that his service book was opened, surely it would have found mention in the service book itself rather than a date of birth recorded on basis of what the petitioner may have claimed when he signed the service book also. Additionally, the petitioner in the writ petition himself states that the authorities rejected his claim on 8.5.2006, but asserts that it was not communicated to 2 him. Even in his amendment application he does not dispute the existence of the order of rejection dated 8.5.2006, but asserts that it is mechanical in nature and shows non-consideration. The counter affidavit states that the genuineness of the school certificate was under genuine doubt upon enquiry from the school in question. He refused to co-operate with the Medical Board. The order dated 8.5.2006 rejecting his request for correction of date of birth is appended as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. It clearly indicates that copy was communicated to him. Section-114(e) of the Evidence Act raises a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. The presumption in law, therefore, shall be that the rejection order was available to the petitioner. He acquiesced in it. The presumption is rebuttable in law. No such rebuttal has been urged by the petitioner and on the contrary it is contended that it is for the respondents to prove the communication of the order to the petitioner. This Court s afraid that it cannot give a retrograde interpretation to Section-114(e) of the Evidence Act. In the entirety of the matter, this Court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)