Md. Abdul Khaleque v. State of West Bengal — 1996 DIGILAW 269 (CAL)

JUDGMENT Satyabrata Sinha, J. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 16.9.94 passed by B.P. Banerjee, J, whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge dismissed a writ application filed by the writ petitioner/appellant for issuance of a Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to correct his date of birth on the basis of school leaving certificate. 2. The writ petitioner in his writ application stated that he had read upto Class VI in Ruhia Free Primary School in the year 1958, whereafter he had to engage himself as a casual worker of Gurudaspur Gram Panchayet. The writ petitioner was appointed as Dafadar purported to be on the basis of an unanimous resolution passed by the Gram Panchayet in their meeting dated 28.3.65, with effect from 1.4.65. The petitioner has contended that he had been acting sincerely and honestly but in the 1st week of December 1989, he came to learn that his date of birth has wrongly been recorded as 1.8.36 in his service records. He filed an application on 11.12.89 to the Prodhan of the said Gram Panchayet praying therein for making necessary correction for rectification thereof. A copy of the said application is contained in Annexure 'B' to the writ application. A resolution was allegedly taken by the Gram Panchayet on 15.12.89, an extract whereof is contained in Annexure 'C' to the writ application. However according to the writ petitioner, despite the same, the Block Development Officer•, Berhampore, did not make necessary correction of the date of birth of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a representation on 18.7.94 before the Sub-divisional Officer, Berhampore, wherein he had prayed that his date of birth be corrected from 1.8.36 to 20.8.47 in terms of the said school leaving certificate, a copy whereof is contained in Annexure 'E' to the writ application. 3. According to the petitioner, he would retire in August 1996, but if his date of birth is corrected, he would be entitled to continue his service upto the year 2007. The learned trial Judge in terms of the impugned judgment rejected the writ application on the ground that Rule 9(1) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I will govern the matter. 4. The learned trial Judge held that the date of birth once declared cannot be altered. The learned trial Judge in terms of the impugned judgment rejected the writ application on the ground that Rule 9(1) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I will govern the matter. 4. The learned trial Judge held that the date of birth once declared cannot be altered. It was further held that Rule 9(5) of the said Rules only provides that the Government can review the order fixing the year, month and the date of birth of a Government servant only on the basis of the materials and sufficient reasons for review, but according to the learned Judge, the petitioner cannot claim the same as a matter of right. 5. Mr. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised a short question in support of this appeal. Learned counsel submits that a bare perusal of the provision of sub-rule (5) of Rule 9 of the West Bengal Service Rules would show that the date of birth of the concerned employee can be corrected at any point of time. Learned counsel in support of his aforementioned contention has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this court in the case of Dy. Commissioner of Police, Special Branch & Ors. vs. Bhupesh Chandra Karanjai & Mati Ranjan Bhattacharya, reported in 1993(2) CHN 57 . 6. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel, submits that although in terms sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I it is the discretion of the appointing authority; keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has filed a representation and further in view of the fact that the difference between the actual date of birth of the petitioner is reflected from the School leaving certificate and the date of birth recorded in the service book, it is incumbent on the part of the Sub-divisional Officer to consider the representation of the petitioner. 7. Mr. Das, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand submits that the Full Bench decision has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case, inasmuch as, in the instant case the petitioner has merely filed a School leaving certificate and he does not have any Matriculation certificate. 8. The School leaving certificate which is contained in Annexure 'B' to the writ application was issued on 2.8.69 at the time when he was leaving the school. 9. 8. The School leaving certificate which is contained in Annexure 'B' to the writ application was issued on 2.8.69 at the time when he was leaving the school. 9. The petitioner in the writ application, as noticed hereinbefore, stated that he read in the said school upto the year 1958 whereafter he had taken up some casual work. The petitioner admittedly had been working since 1st April, 1965. It is therefore difficult to accept as to how and under what circumstances the purported school leaving certificate was granted in the year 1969 stating that according to the admission register his date of birth was 20th August, 1947. Moreover it appears from the said certificate that at the relevant time he was reading in Class-IV. Both the statements in the aforementioned certificate run contrary to the statement made by the petitioner himself in paragraph 2 of the writ application. No reliance, therefore, can be placed on such certificate. 10. The only case of the petitioner for alteration of the date of birth was the certificate itself. If the aforementioned certificate is presumed to be incorrect, the question of taking recourse to sub-rule (5) of Rule 9 of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I would not arise. Moreover it is well-known that when an entry has been made in the service record, the same would be presumed to be correct. 11. It is thus obligatory on the part of the petitioner to place relevant document to show that his date of birth was incorrectly recorded in the service book. It is now well settled in view of the several decisions of this Court that even an entry as regards date of birth in a School cannot be relied upon unless an evidence is adduced to the effect that the person who got the student admitted in the school knew his date of birth. 12. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court recently in the case of Durgapur Project Ltd. vs. Chittaranjan Das reported in 99 CWN 897. It may further be noticed that this Court recently in various decisions has stated that even the Matriculation certificate cannot be considered to be sacrosanct. 13. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of P.K. Mukherjee vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. reported in 1996(1) CLJ 168 and 1996 Lab.I.C. 860. 14. It may further be noticed that this Court recently in various decisions has stated that even the Matriculation certificate cannot be considered to be sacrosanct. 13. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of P.K. Mukherjee vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. reported in 1996(1) CLJ 168 and 1996 Lab.I.C. 860. 14. Keeping in view the aforementioned decisions of this Court and further in view of the fact that Hon'ble Justice Banerjee who himself was a party to the Full Bench, considering the case of the petitioner as not falling within the purview of the said judgment, in our opinion, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment. 15. For the reason aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal which IS accordingly dismissed. 16. There will be no order as to costs. 17. Satya Narayan' Chakrabarty, J.: I agree. Appeal dismissed.