IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.200 of 2008 GIRISH CHANDRA KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- Advocate for the appellant: Dr. S.N.Jha, Sr.Advocate, with Mr. Ashim Jha, Advocate for the respondents:Mr. Rajesh Kr. No.1, G.P.8 --- 19.5.2008 Appeal is admitted. Mr. Rajesh Kr. No.1 accepts notice on behalf of respondents. Looking to the nature of controversy that has been raised in the appeal we dispose it of at this stage itself. Appellant was appointed as a Literate Constable on 18th January, 1970. The date of birth as was given by him was entered in the service book i.e., 19th January, 1948. It appears that in the year 1975, the appellant applied for correction of his date of birth in the service book. The said prayer was not acceded to and that led the appellant to approach this court by filing a writ petition. The Single Judge after hearing the parties by the impugned order dismissed the same vide order dated 12th February, 2008. Hence, this appeal. The counsel for the respondents conceded before 2 us that it was open to the appellant to make an application for correction of date of birth in the service record within 10 years of his entry into service. He did not dispute that the appellant joined service on 18.1.1970. Thus, according to him, the application for correction of date of birth could have been made on or before 17th January, 1980. That the appellant made an application for correction of date of birth in the year 1975 is not denied by the counsel for the respondents. In this backdrop of facts, the question that arises for consideration before us is whether the request of the appellant for correction of his date of birth from 19.1.1948 to 17.6.1953 in the service record was justified or not. In support of his contention that his correct date of birth is 17.6.1953, the appellant produced before the authorities his matriculation certificate wherein his date of birth was recorded as 17.6.1953. It is not the case of the respondents that the matriculation certificate was forged or fabricated. The only explanation put forth by the respondents is that if 17.6.1953 was the correct date of birth of the appellant, then he was 3 under-age in getting the employment. We are afraid that could not have been the ground for rejection of the appellant’s request for correction of the date of birth, if his date of birth is 17.6.1953. The presumption of the correctness of the date of birth that flows from the matriculation certificate has not been rebutted by the respondents at all. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the request of the appellant ought to have been acceded to by the concerned authority and his date of birth ought to have been corrected in the service record as 17.6.1953 in place of 19.1.1948. However, it needs to be clarified that if by wrong representation in respect of his date of birth, the appellant got wrongful entry into service, the respondents are free to take appropriate disciplinary action against him. The letters patent appeal is disposed of by following order: 1) The respondents are directed to correct the date of birth of the appellant in the service record as 17.6.1953 in place of 19.1.1948. The necessary correction shall be made within six weeks from today. 2) The impugned order dated 4 12.02.2008 is quashed and set aside. 3) It is clarified that it shall be open to the respondents to take suitable action against the appellant if it is found that he secured entry into service by wrongful representation in respect of his date of birth. No cost. R.M. Lodha, CJ. Neyaz/ Kishore K. Mandal, J.