JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to make necessary correction in the records of Non-Executive Information System (NEIS) maintained by the respondents, wherein the age of the petitioner has been wrongly entered as 28 years as on 05.09.1990 considering his date of birth as 05.09.1962 in place of his actual date of birth as 31.12.1968 as at the time of joining the service on 06.11.1990, he had already passed ‘Madhyama’ examination held in the year 1989 under ‘Bihar Sanskrit Education Board, Patna’ and the certificate of the said exam shows his date of birth as 31.12.1968.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner got employment in the BCCL at Dhanbad in the year 1990 as underground Miner/Loader at Putki Balihari Area on 06.11.1990. It is evident from the excerpt of service record/details of the petitioner prepared in the year 1993 that his age was wrongly entered as 28 years as on 05.09.1990, whereas his date of birth has been mentioned as 31.12.1968 in his ‘Madhyama’ Certificate. At the time of entering into service, the petitioner wanted to enter his date of birth on the basis of the aforesaid certificate, however, at that time he was not having his certificate. Subsequently, the petitioner represented the competent authority i.e., the General Manager, Putki Balihari Area on 01.08.2013 seeking correction of his date of birth recorded in the service records, copies of which were also sent to the Chief Personnel Manager and the Project Officer, Putki Balihari Area. Thereafter, he kept on pursuing his representation before the appropriate authorities to rectify his date of birth on the basis of Implementation Instruction No. 76 of National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA)-III. Recently, the petitioner represented the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, BCCL, Dhanbad on 23.05.2021 requesting inter alia to look into the matter regarding correction of his date of birth on the basis of ‘Madhyama’ certificate which he had secured prior to joining of his service, however, nothing has been done. The inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not correcting the date of birth in the service records of the petitioner on the basis of his ‘Madhyama’ certificate is arbitrary, malafide and contrary to the procedures as laid down vide Implementation Instruction No. 76 of NCWA-III which has been made applicable for determination/verification of age of the employees. The matriculation or equivalent certificate is the most authentic document for proof of the date of birth of any person especially when he has passed matriculation or equivalent examination prior to joining of his service.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matriculation certificate was neither produced by the petitioner at the time of appointment nor immediately thereafter and he had been all along acknowledging his date of birth as 28 years as on 05.09.1990. Therefore, he cannot claim to change his date of birth in the service records on the strength of said ‘Madhyama’ certificate that too at the fag end of his service. Implementation Instruction No. 76 of NCWA-III has been explained and interpreted by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions wherein it has been held that until and unless there are contradictory dates of birth appearing in various service records, question of invocation of this provision cannot arise.

4. It is further submitted that at the time of appointment, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 28 years as on 05.09.1990 which was duly acknowledged by him. Moreover, he has also put his signature in the service excerpts as well as in the Form-B Register.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has sought correction of his date of birth in his service records claiming that his correct date of birth is 31.12.1968 as has been recorded in his ‘Madhya