Matriculation certificate prevails over admit card discrepancies for determining authentic date of birth in service matters.

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (English) at Rayeen Urdu Girls Middle School in 2010. After eight years of service, her employment was terminated via letter dated 18.04.2019.

The termination was based on a discrepancy between the date of birth recorded in her Matriculation Admit Card and her Matriculation Certificate.

The school management claimed they sought clarification from the Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB) but received no response, leading to the petitioner’s removal and the subsequent rejection of her pay fixation by the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi.

The petitioner challenged the termination and the rejection order (Memo No. 2055) seeking reinstatement and arrears of salary.

1. Whether the termination of the petitioner’s services based on a clerical discrepancy in date of birth between an admit card and a matriculation certificate was legally sustainable.

2. Whether the date of birth mentioned in a verified Matriculation Certificate prevails over other preliminary documents like an admit card.

The court applied the settled legal principle that in cases of discrepancy regarding a person's age, the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate is the authoritative and admissible evidence.

The court also adhered to the principles of natural justice, noting that the termination was passed without providing the petitioner a due opportunity to be heard.

The court relied significantly on the submission of the Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB), which conducted a verification of the original records. The BSEB confirmed that the date of birth in the petitioner’s Matriculation Certificate matched their official records.

The court reasoned that since the primary document for age verification—the Matriculation Certificate—was found to be genuine and correct by the issuing authority, the school management had no valid grounds for termination.

The court observed that the school management failed to resolve the discrepancy through proper inquiry and that the discrepancy between an admit card and a final certificate does not invalidate the latter.

Consequently, the lack of pay fixation by State authorities was found to be a secondary effect of an unlawful termination.

The school management was directed to: (i) reinstate the petitioner within two weeks; (ii) accept the date of birth as per the Matriculation Certificate; and (iii) recommend her case for pay fixation. The State was directed to extend all consequential benefits and arrears to the petitioner within 12 weeks.