Allowed

Mritunjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar through, the Director General of Police

Patna HC19 Jul 2023CWJC/6635/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding the petitioner's appointment as a Child Constable, the Court held that contemporaneous documents (birth certificate and matriculation certificate) showing a later date of birth should be accepted. The Court found that even with the later date, the petitioner had attained the requisite age of 15 years on the appointment date.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed with directions to the authorities to verify documents and give the benefit of the date of birth as per the birth certificate and matriculation certificate.

Mritunjay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6635 of 2021

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Mritunjay Kumar Son of Late Sanjay Kumar Resident of Village - Sukiyama, P.S. - Hulasganj, District- Jehanabad.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through, the Director General of Police Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Inspector General of Police (Budget / Appeal / welfare) Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura.

¶9

The Superintendent of Police, Gaya.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar AC to GP-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT

¶12

Date : 19-07-2023

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶14

counsel for the State.

¶15

On mentioning slip being filed for priority listing, the matter has been listed today under the heading ‘To be Mentioned’.

¶16

3. The petitioner’s father died while in service of the Bihar police on 23-10-2013. He was posted as a constable. The petitioner’s mother had given a date of birth of the petitioner as 10-01-2000 and on that basis the petitioner was found to be aged more than 12 years and appointed as a “Child Constable” under a scheme of the State of Bihar. On attaining majority under the scheme, the person is entitled to apply and be

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.6635 of 2021 dt.19-07-2023 2/3

¶18

considered for regular appointment. It is, at this juncture, when the petitioner had submitted a certificate in respect of his Matriculation Examination and 12th Examination, on account of which a discrepancy has emerged in the date of birth earlier furnished by the petitioner and these certificates. In these certificates, his date of birth is recorded as 04-01-2001.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the contemporaneous documents (birth certificate) issued on 20-01-2001 bears the petitioner’s date of birth as 04-01-2001 . In support of his contention, copy of the birth certificate has been enclosed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Relying on the same, and the Matriculation Certificate, he submits that his date of birth is to be considered as 04-01-2001.

¶20

The learned State Counsel, on the other hand, submits that if this date of birth is considered as the correct date of birth today, his appointment as a Child Constable on 05-01-2016, will suffer from illegality as it would be considered as having been appointed below the age of 12 years.

¶21

Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 and 4.

¶22

This Courts finds that the date of petitioner’s

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.6635 of 2021 dt.19-07-2023 3/3

¶24

appointment, as per the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, is 05-01-2016. Facts being so, the apprehension raised by the respondent authorities that his appointment as a Child Constable would be without fulfilling the requisite age criteria, if his date of birth is considered to be 04-01-2001, is misplaced. If 04-01-2001 is considered as the petitioner’s date of birth, he would have attained 15 years on 05-01-2016 that is the date on which he was appointed.

¶25

The apprehension raised in the counter affidavit being unfounded. This Court finds that the petitioner’s claim based on birth Certificate and Matriculation Certificate requires to be considered favourable to the petitioner. The authorities, after due verification of the birth certificate and Matriculation Certificate, will be obliged to give the benefit of date of birth as per these documents.

¶26

The application is allowed with the aforesaid directions and observations.

¶27

(Madhuresh Prasad, J)

¶28

shyambihari/-
AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	24-08-2023
Transmission Date	N/A

Mritunjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar through, the Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mritunjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar through, the Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nisha Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Rupam Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Niwas Choudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Kumar Choubey Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Baran Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Bishwa Mohan Singh Vs The Union of India