IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1104 of 2023

In

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1966 of 2023

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

Mala Kumari W/o Shri Shiv Nath Rai R/o Village Fulpura, P.O.-

Chaksikandar, P.S.- Bidupur, District- Vaishali.

... ... Appellant

Versus

1.The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of

Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4.The District Magistrate, Vaishali.

5.The District Education Officer, Vaishali.

6.The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Vaishali.

7.The Block Development Officer, Block- Bidupur, Vaishali.

8.The Block Education Officer, Block- Bidupur, Vaishali.

9.The Panchayat Secretary-cum-Secretary, Panchayat Teachers Employment

Unit, Gram Panchayat Raj Chakathkursi Kusiyari, Block- Bidupur, Vaishali.

10.The Headmaster, J.T. High School, Barua, Bahuara, District- Vaishali.

11.The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna through its Chairman.

... ... Respondents

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

Appearance :

For the Appellant: Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, Adv.

Mr. Harsh Kaushal, Adv.

Ms. Anapurna Sinha, Adv.

Mr. Ashish Kumar, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Anjaneya Singh, AC to AAG-13

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY

CAV JUDGMENT

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

2/28

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)

Date: 09-09-2026

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

09.08.2023, passed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court in

CWJC No. 1966 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the writ

application has been dismissed, upon the Ld. Single Judge

having come to a finding that no illegality or infirmity can be

found in the order of termination as well as the order passed by

the State Appellate Authority.

2.The brief facts of the case, according to the appellant are

that in terms of the State Government Resolution No. 1079,

dated 20.06.2002, an advertisement was issued for engagement

of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra across the State of Bihar and the

appellant being eligible had applied for the post of Panchayat

Shiksha Mitra in Gram Panchayat Raj Chakathkursi Kusiyari.

The Sukh Suvidha Samiti, Gram Panchayat Raj Chakathkursi

Kusiyari, vide letter dt. 18.2.2003 had appointed the appellant as

Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on contractual basis for 11 months,

whereupon she had submitted her joining on 25.02.2003 at

Upgraded Primary School, Gurmiswa, Block-Bidupur, District-

Vaishali & since then she has been working there. Subsequently,

the term of the appellant as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra at Gram

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

3/28

Panchayat Raj Chakathkursi Kusiyari was extended from time

to time for further period of 11 months each. In due course, the

appellant also became a Panchayat Teacher in terms of memo

No. 974, dt. 01.07.2006 of the Human Resources Department,

Government of Bihar, whereby all the Panchayat Shiksha Mitra

working as on 01.07.2006 were duly recognized as Panchayat

Teachers.

3.The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has stated that the

appellant passed the matriculation examination in the year 2001

and intermediate examination in the year 2003 apart from

having also passed the Evaluation Exam of Elementary Teachers

conducted by the Human Resources Department in the year

2009, whereafter in the year 2010, the appellant passed D.P.E.

from IGNOU and she was declared to be a trained teacher with

effect from 16.12.2012. It has been further stated that at the time

of engagement as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, since the appellant

had not obtained the certificate of passing the matriculation

exam, she had produced her mark-sheet and school leaving

certificate in proof of passing the said exam as well as in proof

of her date of birth, i.e. 10.09.1984, however subsequently on

04.08.2015 when she got certificate of matriculation exam, it

transpired that her date of birth has been mentioned as

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

4/28

10.09.1986. Thereafter, the appellant had vigorously tried to get

the date of birth recorded in her matriculation examination

certificate corrected, however to no avail but in the meantime,

one Ashok Kumar had made a complaint before the District

Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Vaishali on 12.07.2019 with

respect to the irregular engagement of the appellant, whereupon

a report was called for from the District Programme Officer

(Establishment), Vaishali and in pursuance thereof, he had

submitted his report dated 16.09.2019, inter alia stating therein

that it is apparent from the records that though the date of birth

of the appellant is 10.09.1984, however the Bihar School

Examination Board, Patna has recorded it as 10.09.1986 in the

original certificate and for correction of the same, the appellant

has sent it to the Bihar School Examination, Patna, whereafter

the proceedings before the District Public Grievance Redressal

Officer, Vaishali was dropped, vide order dated 01.10.2019,

stating therein that till a final decision is taken by the Bihar

School Examination Board, Patna, there is no requirement of

any action in the matter.

4.Subsequently, the salary of the appellant was stopped

with effect from July 2022, vide letter dated 22.12.2021, issued

by the Block Education Officer, Bidupur, Vaishali till correction

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

5/28

of the date of birth by the Bihar School Examination Board,

Patna. The appellant had then filed a writ petition bearing

CWJC No. 502 of 2022, seeking a direction upon the Bihar

School Examination Board, Patna for correcting her date of

birth, which was disposed of by the Ld. Single Judge of this

Court, vide order dated 08.03.2022, relegating the petitioner to

the remedy of approaching the District Appellate Authority /

State Appellate Authority for redressal of her grievance. The

appellant had then challenged the said order dated 08.03.2022

by filing an appeal before this Court bearing LPA No. 232 of

2022. At this juncture, we may point out that upon having

verified from the website of this Hon’ble Court, it has transpired

that the aforesaid LPA No. 232 of 2022 has stood dismissed as

withdrawn, vide order dated 05.12.2023.

5.Thereafter, the services of the appellant was terminated

with immediate effect by the Panchayat Secretary-cum-

Secretary, Panchayat Recruitment Committee, Gram Panchayat

Raj Chakathkursi Kusiyari, after seeking a show cause reply

from her, vide office order dated 26.08.2022 while she was

working as Panchayat Teacher at the Upgraded Primary School,

Gurmisma, Bidupur on the allegation that upon verification

having been made from the Bihar School Examination Board,

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

6/28

Patna regarding the date of birth of the appellant, it has been

found that the appellant has made alteration in her date of birth

and obtained employment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, apart

from the appellant having not furnished any satisfactory reply.

6.The appellant had then challenged the aforesaid order

dated 26.08.2022 by filing a petition before the State Appellant

Authority, which was registered as O.A. No. 435/2022, however

the same was dismissed by an order dated 04.11.2022. Being

aggrieved by the said order dated 04.11.2022, the appellant had

preferred the connected writ petition bearing CWJC No. 1966 of

2023, inter alia praying therein to set aside the order dated

04.11.2022, passed by the Ld. State Appellate Authority, Patna

as also the order dated 26.08.2022, passed by the Panchayat

Secretary-cum-Secretary, Panchayat Recruitment Committee,

Gram Panchayat Raj Chakathkursi Kusiyari and for directing

the Respondent authorities to pay salary to the appellant from

01.07.2022 till the date of termination of her services.

7.The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Vaishali

had filed a counter affidavit in the aforesaid writ petition,

wherein it has been stated that the appellant was initially

appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, vide letter dated

18.02.2003 on the basis of wrong date of birth i.e. 10.09.1984

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

7/28

instead of the actual date of birth, i.e. 10.09.1986, whereafter

complaint was filed against the employment of the appellant

before the District Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Vaishali,

leading to submission of a report dated 16.09.2019, as aforesaid,

whereafter the Block Education Officer, Bidupur, vide letter

dated 22.12.2021 had stopped the salary of the appellant till

verification of her date of birth. It has further been stated in para

no. 9 of the said counter affidavit that the date of birth of the

appellant was verified from the Bihar School Examination

Board, Patna and it was found that the appellant has obtained

employment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra by changing her date

of birth, hence the Panchayat Employment Unit took a decision

in its meeting to terminate the services of the appellant in view

of Bihar Panchayat Primary School Service Rules, 2020,

whereafter the said decision was communicated to the appellant,

vide letter dated 26.08.2022, by the Panchayat Secretary-cum-

Secretary, Panchayat Recruitment Committee, Gram Panchayat

Raj Chakathkursi Kusiyari. The said order dated 26.08.2022 was

challenged before the State Appellate Authority, vide O.A. No.

435 of 2022, however the said O.A. was rejected vide order dt.

4.11.2022 on the ground that the appellant has taken steps to

rectify her date of birth at a belated stage and after filing of

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

8/28

complaint against her. The respondents have supported the said

order dt. 4.11.2022, passed by the Ld. State Appellate Authority.

8.We find that a counter affidavit has also been filed by the

Bihar School Examination Board, Patna in the connected writ

petition, wherein it has been stated that the case of the appellant,

after receipt of the writ petition, was looked into and the

connected records/documents available at the Board i.e. the

original tabulation register (OTR) and the duplicate tabulation

register (DTR), pertaining to the appellant for the annual

matriculation examination, 2001 were examined and it has been

found that the appellant was a candidate of annual secondary

school examination, 2001, who had appeared under Roll Code-

5309 and Roll No. 0118 as a regular candidate from J.T. High

School, Barun-Bahuara and her date of birth has been duly

recorded as 10.09.1986. It has also been submitted that the date

of birth is tabulated on the basis of the examination form filled

by the examinees / candidates, duly forwarded and submitted by

the Headmasters of the concerned school at the relevant point of

time, however such examination forms are normally preserved

with the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna for a year only,

as such at the moment, no such examination form / data copies

relating to the appellant for the year 2001 annual matriculation

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

9/28

examination are available, nonetheless the tabulation register is

kept preserved in office of the Bihar School Examination Board,

Patna, wherein the date of birth of the appellant has been

recorded as 10.9.1986. It is also mentioned in the counter

affidavit filed by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna

that in all cases where an application is filed seeking correction

in the date of birth, the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna

necessarily requires that the concerned candidate submits his /

her original admit-card, original register slip, supporting

original school admission register, original T.C. guard file etc.

and the application for correction of date of birth has to be filed

within 10 years, whereafter the entire documents so produced by

the concerned candidate are taken into account by the Bihar

School Examination Board, Patna and corrections of printing

mistake only, if any, found genuinely is made. It has also been

pointed out that as per Rule 96 of the Bihar Finance Rules, no

representation for rectification of mistake in the date of birth as

entered in the records of service of a government servant is to be

entertained if the same is not submitted within 10 years of the

date of entry into Government service and all such

representations made thereafter, are required to be summarily

rejected. In this connection, reliance has been placed on a

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

10/28

judgment rendered by a Ld. Single Bench of this Court dated

11.12.2008, passed in CWJC No. 869 of 2007 (Rajiv Ranjan vs.

The State of Bihar & Ors.), relevant portion whereof is

reproduced herein below:-

“The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board

contains a clear averment in paragraph-12 that the letter

contained in Annexure-1 is not available. Two judgments

of Division Bench contained in Annexures-A and A/1

show that in context of students’ demand for publication

of result made after 13 years or 16 years the writ court

refused to interfere in the matter. In this case, petitioner

knew his date of birth as mentioned in his certificate

issued by the Board in the year 1991 itself. He has filed

the present writ petition in the year 2007 after about 16

years. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that many

of the old records in the School Examination Board are

not retained after ten years. Such delay if condoned is

likely to encourage cases of fraud. A change in the date of

birth recorded in matriculation certificate issued by the

Board is a serious matter because it involves many

consequences and particularly affects the date of

retirement etc. Hence, this Court is not persuaded to

condone such delay in such matters. The writ petition is

dismissed on the preliminary issue itself.”

9.The aforesaid order dated 11.12.2008, passed in the case

of Rajiv Ranjan (supra) was assailed by filing an appeal bearing

LPA No. 67 of 2009, however the same has also stood dismissed

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

11/28

in the following terms:-

“Writ petitioner-appellant appeared in the examination

conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board in the

year 1991. He filed application before this Court inter

alia praying for a direction to the respondent Bihar

School Examination Board to correct his date of birth. It

was pointed out that in the year 1991 the matter was

inquired.

The learned Single Judge taking into account the fact that

the writ petitioner has approached this Court belatedly,

declined to interfere.

We do not find any error in the same.

The appeal stands dismissed in limine.”

10.In the counter affidavit filed by the Bihar School

Examination Board, reference has been made to a decision of

the Board dated 27.09.2006, wherein it has been stipulated that

normally the time limit for correction of date of birth shall be 10

years. It has also been mentioned in the counter affidavit that the

appellant had approached the Regional Office (Tirhut Range) of

the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna and submitted an

application seeking correction in the date of birth only on

31.03.2022, whereafter upon registering her claiming ID No.

128925 was created for major correction but after due scrutiny

of the matter, the application of the appellant was rejected on

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

12/28

22.04.2022. It has been averred in the counter affidavit that the

documents issued by the Bihar School Examination Board,

Patna with respect to the appellant i.e. the registration slip,

admit-card and matriculation certificate, all contain her date of

birth as 10.09.1986.

11.It has also been contended in the counter affidavit filed by

the Bihar School Examination Board that the conduct of the

appellant is further revealed from the startling fact that in order

to make herself eligible for engagement as Panchayat Shiksha

Mitra, the minimum age required being 18 years, she had

deliberately not produced the original documents / certificates

containing her date of birth as 10.09.1986, rather she had

furnished the school leaving certificate, wherein her wrong date

of birth, i.e. 10.09.1984 was mentioned, inasmuch as on the date

of her selection by the Sukh-Suvidha Committee, Gram

Panchayat Raj Chakathkursi Kusiyari on 18.02.2003, she would

have been only 16 years 05 months and 17 days, i.e. below 18

years of age, if her original date of birth, i.e. 10.09.1986 is

considered, hence in order to grab the job of Panchayat Shiksha

Mitra, she had furnished wrong date of birth, which now she is

hopelessly trying to overcome by making a false claim for

correction of date of birth.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

13/28

12.The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that

the appellant had long back taken active steps to rectify her date

of birth and in the process submitted her application along with

necessary documents to the Headmaster of the school, who had

forwarded her application to the Bihar School Examination

Board, Patna, however the Bihar School Examination Board,

Patna was sitting tight over the matter, against which the

appellant has been pursuing her remedy before this Court

separately. It is further submitted that in view of the decision of

the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of

Kalpana Rani vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2014

(2) PLJR 665 (FB), the issue pertaining to appointment of

Panchayat Shiksha Mitra cannot be reopened.

13.The learned counsel for the appellant has next contended

that the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of R. Vishwanathan Pillai vs. State of Kerala & Others,

reported in (2004) 2 SCC 105 is not applicable in the present

case, inasmuch as in the said case, the incumbent had obtained

appointment by playing fraud on the basis of a false caste

certificate whereas in the present case the appellant had

mentioned her correct date of birth at the time of her

engagement as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, however the change in

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

14/28

the date of birth of the appellant is on account of mistake

committed by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna and

for correction of the same, the appellant has taken steps so that

the date of birth is corrected in the records. Thus, it is submitted

that neither the appellant has suppressed any fact nor committed

any fraud/forgery to obtain employment.

14.The learned counsel for the appellant has next referred to

the school leaving certificate dated 16.06.2001, wherein the date

of birth of the appellant has been mentioned as 10.09.1984. It is

submitted that the school entry / admission register of J.T. High

School, Barun-Bahuara also mentions the date of birth of the

appellant to be 10.09.1984. In fact, the appellant has been

pursuing her case for correction of date of birth but without any

fruitful results.

15.The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on a

judgment dated 14.11.2017 rendered by a coordinate Bench of

this Court in LPA No. 501 of 2017 (Ajit Kumar vs. The State of

Bihar & Ors.) to contend that the Ld. Division Bench of this

Court by relying on a judgment rendered in the case of Chief

Post Master General vs. Nirbhay Kumar, reported in 2008 (3)

PLJR 344, has held that in case of termination of services of the

appellant of the said case for having procured it by producing a

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

15/28

forged certificate, an opportunity of hearing was required to be

granted and the same having not been done, this itself is

sufficient enough to allow the writ petition. Thus, the coordinate

Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case of Ajit Kumar (supra)

had allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of termination

and granted liberty to the State Respondents to proceed in

accordance with law after reinstating the petitioner, however it

was directed that no salary shall be payable for the intervening

period. The learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to

a judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court dated

10.03.2010, passed in LPA No. 426 of 2010 (The State of Bihar

vs. Birendra Kumar), paragraphs no. 11 and 12 whereof are

reproduced herein below:-

“11. One thing however which needs to be clarified here

is that on the strength of the matriculation certificate as

per Annexure-17 recording the date of birth of the

Respondent writ petitioner as 30.6.1974, on the basis of

which he claims to have been appointed despite being a

minor, he can continue in service for a maximum span of

42 years and therefore if he had taken advantage by

entering in service before attaining 18 years of his age he

has to be made to superannuate on completion of

maximum 42 years of permissible government service as

per the policy decision of the State Government of the

year 1998, also approved by a Full Bench Judgment of

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

16/28

this Court in the case of Ragiawa Narayan Mishra Vs.

Bihar Rajya Khadi Gramoudyog Board and others

reported in 2006(1) PLJR 410, even though he will not

be completing 60 years of age i.e. the age of normal

superannuation of a clerk in a secondary school

governed by Bihar Shiksha Anusachivia Niyamabali,

1974.

12. This court thus while upholding the order of learned

single Judge would make it clear that since it is the case

of respondent-writ petitioner that his matriculation

certificate bearing No. 88C 218334 recording his date of

birth as 30.6.1974 is the one, on the basis of which he got

appointed on 18.8.1990, he would accordingly also

superannuate from service upon completing 42 years of

maximum service permissible to a government servant as

he cannot take benefit of the date of birth of 30.7.1970

shown in his another matriculation certificate

subsequently found to be forged, as was held by a

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Baidyanath

Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in

1983 Labour and Industrial Cases 162. Accordingly, the

date of superannuation of the petitioner will be 18.8.2032

the date on which he would complete 42 years of service

and not 30th June 2034 the date on which he would

complete 60 years of age.”

16.Thus, it is contended by the learned counsel for the

appellant by relying on the aforesaid judgment rendered in the

case of Birendra Kumar (supra) that even if an incumbent has

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

17/28

been appointed despite being a minor, he / she can continue in

service for a maximum span of 42 years and therefore, if the

said incumbent had taken advantage by entering in service

before attaining the age of 18 years, he/she has to be made to

superannuate on completion of maximum 42 years of

permissible Government service as per the policy decision of

the State Government of the year 1998, as also approved by a

full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of

Rajiawa Narayan Mishra (supra), even though the incumbent

shall not be completing 60 years of age i.e. the age of normal

superannuation of a clerk in a secondary school governed by

Bihar Shiksha Anusachivia Niyamabali, 1974.

17.The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on a

judgment dated 17.05.2026, passed by a Ld. Single Judge of this

Court in CWJC No. 10079 of 2011 (Md. Ashraf Ansari vs. The

State of Bihar & Ors.), relevant portion whereof is reproduced

herein below:-

“Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have

also perused the materials available on record. Fact

remains that presently there is no order on record to

suggest that any action has been taken against the

petitioner on the ground that he was under age at the

time of initial appointment as Shiksha Mitra. Without

going into detail keeping in view the fact that till date no

final order has been passed it would not be appropriate

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

18/28

for this court to pass any positive order. However, the

court is of the opinion that once a person was appointed

as Shiksha Mitra on contractual basis which was only for

a period of eleven months subject to re-engagement,

thereafter he was re-engaged and at the time of re-

engagement if he had attained the age eligible for

appointment the earlier defect at subsequent stage has

got no relevance. For consideration the relevant date

would be the date on which status of Shiksha Mitra was

changed as Panchayat Teacher. If on the cut-off date a

person was eligible to be appointed or converted as

Panchayat Teacher certainly in that event any error

committed at the initial stage on contractual basis may

not have any relevance. With above observation the writ

petition stands disposed of with indication that if any

action is taken against the petitioner on the plea that he

was under age in the year 2003 at the time of his initial

engagement as Shiksha Mitra he would be at liberty to

directly approach this court.

18.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

gone through the materials on record and we find that the facts

of the case lie in a narrow encompass, inasmuch as the appellant

was initially appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, vide letter

dated 18.02.2003 on contractual basis for 11 months, whereafter

the term of the appellant was extended from time to time for

further period of 11 months each. In due course, the appellant

became a Panchayat Teacher in terms of memo No. 974, dt.

01.07.2006 of the Human Resources Department, Govt. of

Bihar. A bare perusal of the records would show that the

appellant, in order to make herself eligible for engagement as

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

19/28

Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, had furnished the school leaving

certificate, wherein her wrong date of birth, i.e. 10.09.1984 was

mentioned, inasmuch as on the date of her selection, i.e. on

18.02.2003, she would have been only 16 years 05 months & 17

days, i.e. below 18 years of age, if her original date of birth, i.e.

10.09.1986 is considered. It is a matter of record that by virtue

of the appellant’s appointment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, she

was absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher under the Bihar

Panchayat Primary Teachers (Recruitment & Condition of

Service) Rules, 2006, issued vide notification dated 01.07.2006.

19.Subsequently, a complaint was filed before the District

Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Vaishali, leading to

submission of a report dated 16.09.2019, as aforesaid,

whereafter the Block Education Officer, Bidupur, vide letter dt.

22.12.2021 had stopped the salary of the appellant till

verification of her date of birth. The respondents had then got

the date of birth of the appellant verified from the Bihar School

Examination Board, Patna & it was found that the appellant has

obtained employment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra by changing

her date of birth, hence the Panchayat Employment Unit took a

decision to terminate the services of the appellant, whereafter

the said decision was communicated to the appellant, vide letter

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

20/28

dt. 26.08.2022. The said order dated 26.08.2022 was challenged

before the State Appellate Authority, vide O.A. No. 435/2022,

however the said O.A. was rejected vide order dt. 4.11.2022.

The appellant had then challenged the said order dated

04.11.2022 by filing the connected writ petition bearing CWJC

No. 1966 of 2023, which has also stood dismissed by the

impugned Order dt. 09.08.2023.

20.The records would bear it out that the entire dispute has

arisen on account of two date of births of the appellant being

available on record, inasmuch as on the one hand, the school

leaving certificate issued by J.T. High School, Barun-Bahuara,

Vaishali records the date of birth of the appellant to be

10.09.1984, whereas the matriculation pass certificate issued by

the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna shows the date of

birth of the appellant to be 10.9.1986, however we find from the

contemporaneous records like the school entry/admission

register, school leaving certificate etc. that the date of birth of

the appellant has been recorded as 10.09.1984, hence the

possibility of mistake having been committed while issuing the

matriculation pass certificate cannot be ruled out.

21.We would first advert to the issue as to whether the

judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

21/28

Vishwanathan Pillai (supra) would be applicable in the facts

and circumstances of the present case to the extent that no right

under Article 311 of the Constitution of India is available to a

person obtaining appointment fraudulently on the basis of a

forged caste certificate. In this regard, we would observe that as

far as the judgment rendered in the case of R. Vishwanathan

Pillai (supra) is concerned, the same was dealing with a case

where the very appointment to civil post was vitiated by fraud,

forgery or crime or illegality and in such cases, it would

necessarily follow that no constitutional rights under Article 311

of the Constitution of India can possibly flow from such a

tainted force, thus the cloak of protection under Article 311 of

the Constitution of India would not be attracted. However, in the

present case, we find that it is not a case of obtaining

employment in a fraudulent manner, inasmuch as the appellant

had definitely passed her matriculation exam since she had

submitted her mark-sheet at the time of employment as

Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 18.02.2003 along with the school

leaving certificate in which the date of birth of the appellant was

mentioned as 10.09.1984, however later on when she got her

duplicate matriculation pass certificate issued by the Bihar

School Examination Board, Patna on 04.08.2015, since the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

22/28

original matriculation certificate was not available, it was found

that her date of birth has been recorded as 10.09.1986

inadvertently, whereafter the appellant had taken steps to get the

date of birth rectified by approaching the Bihar School

Examination Board, Patna but when no response was shown,

she had filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 502 of 2022,

however the Ld. Single Judge by an order dated 08.3.2022 had

relegated the appellant to the remedy of approaching the District

Appellate Authority/State Appellate Authority.

22.The appellant had then approached the State Appellate

Authority by filing O.A. No. 435 of 2022, however the issue of

different date of births was not gone into by the Ld. State

Appellate Authority while passing the order dated 04.11.2022,

hence the appellant was virtually left remediless with regard to

correction of her date of birth in the records of the Bihar School

Examination Board, Patna. Thus, we are of the opinion that a

bonafide dispute has arisen with regard to the date of birth of the

appellant and the records would bear it out that the appellant has

not committed any forgery for the purposes of obtaining

employment much less altered her date of birth, inasmuch as

there is no allegation of tampering with the date of birth in the

school leaving certificate as would be apparent from a bare

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

23/28

perusal of the school leaving certificate dated 16.06.2001. Yet

another aspect of the matter is that the matriculation

examination pass certificate issued by the Bihar School

Examination Board, Patna recording the date of birth of the

appellant as 10.09.1986 is not disputed by the authorities of the

Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, however on account of

the intervening circumstances i.e. the appellant not possessing

the matriculation examination certificate at the time of being

appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 18.02.2003, the

appellant had submitted the mark-sheet of the matriculation

examination and the school leaving certificate mentioning her

date of birth as 10.09.1984, leading to her date of birth being

recorded by the State authorities as 10.09.1984. Thus, it cannot

be said that the appellant has obtained appointment on the basis

of a forged matriculation certificate, inasmuch as the same has

not been stated to be a forged document by the Bihar School

Examination Board, Patna.

23.Therefore, if the appellant is possessing a valid

matriculation pass certificate mentioning her date of birth as

10.09.1986, then the only question which arises from the point

of view of the Respondents is as to whether the appellant could

have been appointed in the year, 2003 since she was then only

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

24/28

about 16 and a half years of age, which in our view would at

best be a mere irregularity in the appointment of the appellant.

Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

the case we are of our view that the appellant cannot be

punished in the year 2022, i.e. after lapse of more than 19 years

since her appointment. In fact, it cannot be said that the

appellant was appointed on the basis of a matriculation

certificate, wherein the appellant had altered the date of birth,

inasmuch as she was appointed on the basis of the date of birth

mentioned in the school leaving certificate and it was incumbent

upon the appointing authority to have verified the certificates of

the appellant in the year 2003 itself, however having not done

so, the respondent authorities cannot at a belated stage take

punitive action against the appellant for no fault of hers.

Reference be also had to Rule 13 of the Bihar Panchayat

Elementary School Service (Appointment, Promotion, Transfer,

Disciplinary Proceeding and Service Condition) Rules, 2020

(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 2020”).

24.We also find from the records that neither there has been

any concealment on the part of the appellant nor the appellant

has engaged in any sort of forgery and the issue of two date of

births qua the appellant has arisen only on account of the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

25/28

difference of two years in between the date of birth as

mentioned in the school leaving certificate vis-a-vis the one

mentioned in the matriculation pass certificate issued by the

Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. Moreover, the services

of the appellant has been terminated by the impugned order dt.

26.08.2022, issued by the Panchayat Secretary-cum-Secretary,

Panchayat Recruitment Committee, Gram Panchayat Raj

Chakathkursi Kusiyari contrary to the provisions contained in

the Rules, 2020. Thus, we are of the opinion that the said office

order dated 26.8.2022, issued by the Panchayat Secretary-cum-

Secretary, Panchayat Recruitment Committee, Gram Panchayat

Raj Chakathkursi Kusiyari is illegal and fit to be set aside.

25.As far as the judgment rendered in the case of R.

Vishwanathan Pillai (supra) is concerned, the same is not

applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case

since this is not a case where the appellant has either obtained

employment on the basis of forged caste certificate much less

forged matriculation certificate, hence the cloak of protection

under Article 311 of the Constitution of India is definitely

attracted in the present case.

26.We are of the view that now at this belated stage, it would

be inequitable and a travesty of justice if we allow the

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

26/28

concerned State authorities to initiate departmental proceeding

or undertake the procedure prescribed under the Rules, 2020 but

then what has weighed in our mind to persuade us in not giving

such liberty is that admittedly, neither the matriculation pass

certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna

has been found to be forged nor the State authorities have been

able to prove that the same is forged, inasmuch as the Bihar

School Examination Board, Patna has itself, in the counter

affidavit filed before the Writ Court, admitted that the said

certificate is genuine and the date of birth recorded therein is

10.09.1986, hence the appointment of the appellant as

Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 18.02.2003 on the basis of school

leaving certificate showing her date of birth to be 10.09.1984

can at best be stated to be a mere irregularity for which the

appellant cannot be proceeded and punished in the year 2022

much less in the year 2026.

27.Thus, the only issue which now survives for consideration

is that if the date of birth as mentioned in the matriculation pass

certificate i.e. 10.09.1986 is to be taken into account on the

strength of which the appellant was appointed despite being a

minor, then she can continue in service for a maximum span of

42 years only in terms of Rule 9 and Rule 14 of the Rules, 2020,

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

27/28

which prescribes the minimum age for appointment on the post

of District Elementary Teacher to be 18 years and further

stipulates that the Headmaster, Teacher and instructor may

remain in service up to 60 years of age. Thus, if the appellant

had taken advantage by entering in service before attaining 18

years of age, she has to be made to superannuate on completion

of maximum 42 years of permissible government service as per

the Rules, 2020, even though she would be completing 60 years

of age later on. Hence, we clarify that since it is the case of the

appellant that she has got employment on the post of Panchayat

Shiksha Mitra on 18.2.2003 on the strength of the matriculation

pass certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board,

Patna, as aforesaid, which records her date of birth as

10.09.1986, she would accordingly remain in service for a

maximum period of 42 years of service as also she would not be

entitled to take the benefit of the date of birth, i.e. 10.09.1984,

as depicted in the school leaving certificate. This aspect of the

matter is not only covered by the Hon’ble Full Bench Judgment

of this Court rendered in the case of Rajiawa Narayan Mishra

(supra) but also by the judgment rendered by a coordinate

Bench of this Court in the case of Birendra Kumar (supra).

28.Having regard the facts and circumstances of the case and

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1104 of 2023 dt.09-09-2026

28/28

for the foregoing reasons, we find that the order dated

26.08.2022, passed by the Panchayat Secretary-cum-Secretary,

Panchayat Recruitment Committee, Gram Panchayat Raj

Chakathkursi Kusiyari, terminating the services of the appellant

and the order dated 04.11.2022, passed by the State Appellate

Authority in O.A. No. 435 of 2022, being illegal and perverse

are liable to be set aside, hence are quashed. Accordingly, the

appellant shall be entitled to back wages for the period she has

worked. Consequently, we find that the impugned order dated

09.08.2023, passed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court in

CWJC No. 1966 of 2023 is not sustainable in the eyes of law,

hence is also set aside.

29.The present appeal stands allowed.

I agree.

(Sourendra Pandey, J)

Ajay/-

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)

(Sourendra Pandey, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE 27.07.2026

Uploading Date 09.09.2026

Transmission Date NA