IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.130 of 2010 Nilam Kumari, Daughter of Late Surya Narayan Singh, Resident of village Sirampur, Bhataura, P.S. Hathauri, District Samastipur……………………………………………………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga, District Darbhanga. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Darbhanga, District Darbhanga. 6. The Block Development Officer, Biraul, District Darbhanga. 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Agra Usri, P.S. Biraul, District Darbhanga. 8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Agra Usri, P.S. Biraul, District Darbhanga. 9. The Member, District Teacher appointment Appellate Authority, Darbhanga, District Darbhanga………………………………………………………Respondents -------- 4 12.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. In this writ application, petitioner has challenged an order of the Appellate Authority dated 31.08.2009, as contained in Annexure-11, which was passed on the representation of the petitioner filed pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, vide Annexure-10. The Appellate Authority has found 2 that on the date of Counselling, petitioner was asked to submit her original matriculation certificate for which one week time was allowed to her and other candidates. In spite of passage of one week time, petitioner did not submit the same and, therefore, the merit list was finalized by the Employment Agency on 06.11.2007 while rejecting the claim of petitioner and others for their appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the Employment Agency had doubt with regard to date of birth of the petitioner, it should have got the same verified from the records of the concerned school. He submits that the school leaving certificate which petitioner had submitted contained her date of birth. Hence, the same should have been accepted. It is well known that for determination of date of birth, matriculation certificate is recognized as a conclusive proof. Any document as a substitute to matriculation certificate is not binding on any authority for the 3 purpose of fixing the date of birth of a candidate. If the Employment Agency had required the original matriculation certificate, for which one week time was allowed to the petitioner, she should have furnished the same within the said time. The Appellate Authority has noticed that as per her claim, petitioner had passed matriculation examination in 1990 but till 2007 she was not in custody of the matriculation certificate, and she did not produce the same before the Appellate Authority also in spite of liberty granted to her. This Court finds that the Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner on cogent grounds. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application. The same is dismissed. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)