I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11240 of 2001 BILAT YADAV, son of Shri Sant Yadav, resident of village – Sonwari, P S Rajnagar, District Madhubani…… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Commissioner- cum-Secretary, Rural Development Department (Gramin Vikas), Main Secretariat, Patna 2. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Madhubani………. Respondents ******* 06- 4.12.2008 Heard Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur for the petitioner, Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad Sinha, learned Govt. Pleader III for respondent no.1, and Mr. Sabbir Ahmad for respondent no.2 (Zila Parishad, Madhubani). This writ petition has been preferred by a former employee of respondent no.2, with respect to his date of birth. 2. According to the writ petition, his correct date of birth is 10.8.1948, and prays for consequential reliefs. On the other hand, respondent no.2 has taken the stand that initial entry of date of birth in his service record was 10.8.1943 which was by contrivance of interpolation converted to 10.8.1948. The two sets of respondents have placed on record their separate counter affidavits. Respondent no.2 has also produced the original service records relating to the petitioner which has been made available to learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.1 for their perusal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure prescribed under rule-96 of the Bihar Finance Rules for - 2 - correction of the date of birth of an employee has not really been followed by respondent no.2. He next submits that respondent no.2 has altered the petitioner’s date of birth from 10.8.1948 to 10.8.1943 unilaterally. No show-cause notice was issued to him and, therefore, alteration in the original record is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner, and on consideration of the materials on record, the correct date of birth was restored in order to set right the interpolation caused by the petitioner. Learned Govt. Pleader appearing for respondent no.1 has supported the impugned action. He relies on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court reported in 2003(1) PLJR 587 (Krishna Narain Banerjee vs. State of Bihar). 5. We have perused the materials on record including the original service records of the petitioner produced by respondent no.2, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner had entered the service of respondent no.2 way back in 1962 as Amin, a class IV post. The petitioner was then non-matriculate. The respondent authorities issued notice dated 7.11.2000 (Annexure 1) notifying, inter alia, the date of superannuation of the petitioner as on 31.8.2001 giving rise to the cause of action for the present writ petition. The petitioner has been so made to superannuate taking 10.8.1943 to be his correct date of birth which is under challenge in the present writ petition. Column 5 of the original record reads as - 3 - follows :- “5. Date of birth by Christian era as nearly as can be ascertained. 5. bZloh lu ds vuqlkj tgk¡ rd fu’p; gks lds tUe dh frfFk “Age recorded as per Secretary’s orders dated 29.11.83 on Collec. VI-8(Part) of 83-84 10-8-194 (Portion of page torn, and 10.8.194 penned through) 10-8-1943 10-8-1948 (10th August Nineteen hundred forty ……) (10.8.1948 penned through) 10th August 43 Sd/ - 30.11.83 Secretary” It is thus evident on a perusal of the original records that the portion of the page recording the figure `3’ occurring towards the end of his initial entry in the date of birth has been torn away, and “10.8.1948 (10th August nineteen hundred forty eight) has been written thereunder. It is quite evident that there was scope for only one entry for date of birth in figures and in words. The portion of the page after “10.8.194” has been town away with dexterity. Furthermore, the entry in figures is generally followed by its description in words but the latter is absent. 6. Two aspects of the matter make it evident that this is a contrivance attributable to the petitioner. Portion of the paper where `3’ was originally written, has been removed, and the sentence thereunder giving in words the description of the date of birth is in a different handwriting altogether. This seems to have been detected by respondent no.2, and steps were taken to have the same corrected. It - 4 - appears on the basis of the materials on record that show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and, on consideration of the materials on record, the original date of birth, namely, 10.8.1943 was restored by an official entry giving details of the order passed by respondent no.2. In that view of the matter, the correction in the original records cannot be faulted. In fact, respondent no.2 acted in due discharge of duties and corrected the manipulation attributable to the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner could have been subjected to a criminal case also, but respondent no.2 does not seem to have taken such action. 7. The writ petition is dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl