Jagdav vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 9 May, 2022
Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that as per Sub Rule 3 of Rule 12, the age determination should be done according to the scheme provided in rule. As per Rule 12 (3) (a) (i), the matriculation or equivalent certificate, if available will have to be seen. In absence thereof the second exercises is to be done i.e. the school attended in first class and third one is to be seen that date of birth issued by Corporation or Municipal Authority or Panchayat. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that revisionist was able to prove his document and there is no forgery. So far as, High school certificate is concerned, once it is a genuine document and proved by the headmistress then the age will be determined as per certificate of high school. He submitted that order passed by the Board is justified and there is no need for interference as has been done by the appellate Court. Counsel for the revisionist has relied on the judgement passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1472 of 2014 (Valajindra Kaur Vs. State of U.P. and Another) dated 12.09.2019.