HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR WRH‘ PETITION (S) No. 3210 0f 2008 RESPONDENTS VPETmeNER Amarjeet $§ngh S/o. Charan Singh, 5r. Dumper Operatar, Kusmunda Area, S.E.C.L.’ aged about 48 years, resident of Vikash Nagar, Heuse No. 312 of Kusmunda, District Kerba(C.G.) VER$US : 1.. S.E.G;L, through §ts CMD. Seepat Road, BHaspur, District Biiaspur (C.G.) 2. Chief Genem Manager, S.E.C.L. Kusmunda Area, S.E.C.L, §istr§ct Koz'ba (C.G.) ' WRIT PETiTiON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF ?HE CONSTiTUTiON OF §NDIA SB: HOIYbié Shiri Satish K. Agnihotri. i. P?esent: Shri S.N.Prasad, Advacate for the petitianer. Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocata for the respondents. GRAL ORDER (Passed on 24th day of March, 2009) -1. By this petitian, the petitioner Seeks a direction tp the responéems to refer his case to the Age Determmation Committee (for short M30) f0? de‘terminétion and correction ef his date of birth recordeci, in the SENice fe€0fd5. . We mie'f facts, m nutshell, ae prejected by the getitiener are thak the petiticnea‘ waS appainted on 23.10.1980 a‘i Banki CGHiefy 0f the reepondent No. 1. The petitioner came to know later that his oiaie 0i birth has wrongiy been mentioned in the service records as 12.04.1952, which shouid be infect 6.2.1969. it is further ihe case of ihe getitianei’ that the date of birth of the father 0f the petitioner is 01.91.1943 who was also an ,empioyee of respondent No. 1.. 'i'nus, taking iiito CQnSidei’ation the date GT bifii’i 0f ihe iaetitioner and hi3 father, there can be in no manner, e difference of oniy 9 yeare or age. The peiitioner made vericus renreeen‘ia‘gions for correciion o? hie eerie oi birth vide oommeniceiien dated 14.9%.299? {Annexere F/1) and 21.95.2{i08'01nnexure P/z), ihe netiiiener were informed that a5 per imeiementation instruction No.76, there wee no caee for referring the matter to the ADC. 40 . Leamec! ceunse! appearing far the pemioner submsts that on 27m facts ayaiiable‘ thiE is a case which haS to be referred i0 the ADC. ‘ Gr: guew, asto'whether the petitiener wishes to challenge the order dated 14.05.2007 (Annexure P/1} and 21.95.2008 (Annexure P/2), Shri Prasad submits that it is not necessaw t0 chaiienge the same as the above ie'ttefs-are simply intimatian to ihe petitions? that his case cannot be considered by the ADC. . Shri Sinha, learned counsei appearing for the respondents submits that as per the implementation Instruction No. 75, on the basis of Which the petitioner is seeking referral of his case to the ADC, the date oi birth recorded at the time of joining the services is final and shaii not be changed uncier any circumstances. it can oniy be reviewed ii there is a document, schooi ieaving certificate or a mark-sheet issued prior to the date of joining of the services. in the instant case, the petitioner has not fiied any document issued prior to the date of joining oi his services in the year 1980, but is ciaiming change of date of birth on the basis of a document issued in the year 1999 and, therefore, is not entitied to invoke the provisions of the impiementation instruction No. 76 and consequentiaiiy is not entitied for any reiief for referring his case to the ADC. . Be that as it may, until and uniess the relevant orders are under chaiienge by which it has been deciined to refer the matter to the Age Determination Committee, no relief can be granted. . . Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this petition is dismissed on the ground that the orders in question whereby the case of the petitioner was not referred to the Age Determination Committee, is not under chalienge. No order asto costs. K sal- ‘ eatish K.Agnihotri Judge 6 9 ‘