Nitu Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8537 of 2022 ====================================================== Nitu Kumari D/o Late Dharikshan Singh, R/o Village Bharthui, P.O. - Kishunpur Misrauli, P.S. - Ziradei, District - Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department of Human Recourse, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Bihar School Examination Board, through its Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Chairman Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. 4.

The Headmaster, U.M.S. Katwar, Block Andar, District - Siwan. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Umesh Narayan Dubey, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 26-08-2022 The petitioner, who is in service now, by way of this writ petition prays for correction of date of birth in the certificate issued by B.S.E.B. in the year 1995. It is submitted that the date of birth mentioned in the school leaving certificate is 09.11.1981, whereas in the certificate issued by the B.S.E.B., the date of birth mentioned as 19.07.1980. It is stated that in character certificate too, the date of birth is 19.11.1981 and in the school leaving certificate also the date of birth mentioned was 09.11.1981 and therefore, he has mentioned in the service book also as date of birth being 09.11.1981.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8537 of 2022(2) dt.26-08-2022 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of birth ought to be treated as 09.11.1981 even in certificate issued by the Board.

This court finds that the relief claimed cannot be granted to the petitioner:- (a) For the reason as the petitioner has approached after a long delay. The result and the certificate issued in the year 1995 while the petition has been preferred in the year 2022. (b) This court finds that the date of birth mentioned by the petitioner in his service book is on account of his own falling.

Thus, the date of birth as mentioned in the certificate issued by the Board is sacroscant and is to be treated to be the date of birth of an individual unless corrected by the Board. No other document is to be treated and considered for the purpose of assessing the date of birth of an individual. Keeping in view thereto, the writ petition is found to be wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) amit/- Item no.17 U