IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7701 of 2005 Vinaya Kumar Das, son of Late Bhola Das, Resident of Village- Chaidha, P.O.- Babu Bagicha, P.S.- Chautham (earlier Manshi), District- Khagaria (earlier Monghyr). ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal, Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya Forest Division, Gaya. 5. The Conservator of Forest, Gaya Circle, Gaya. ... Respondents. ----------- 02- 9.4.2009 Heard Mr. Birju Prasad for the petitioner and learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader No.7. The petitioner raises a grievance before this Court that he has been superannuated with effect from 31.7.2003, taking 1.1.1943 to be his date of birth, whereas the correct position is that 1.1.1950 is his correct date of birth. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner had joined the services of the Bihar Government on 6.10.1978 as Forest guard. His date of birth came in dispute and the entire matter was examined. It was found that the service record had originally mentioned 1.1.1943 to be his date of birth, which was penned through, and 1.1.1950 was substituted as his date of birth. A photo copy of 2 the relevant extract of the service record is marked Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It is evident on a plain reading of the same that the statement “1.1.1943” as per school leaving certificate was originally stated therein in the same hand-writing as the remaining portions of Annexure-4. The same was penned through and substituted by “1.1.1950”, which is in different hand-writing. It obviously appears to be a later insertion. We are unable to comparing the ink because Annexure-4 is a photo copy of the original. It further appears from the inter-departmental communication dated 16.9.2003 (Annexure-3) that the respondent authorities, before taking the impugned action, examined the certificate submitted by the petitioner supposed to have been issued by the School, indicated that he had passed Class-X at the age of 11. It cumulatively leads to the conclusion that the original statement in the service record of 1.1.1943 is the correct date of birth of the petitioner and has to be accepted. 3. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 3