Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 549 (CAL)

Snehalata Patra v. State of West Bengal

2000-11-10

ASHOK KUMAR MATHUR, BARIN GHOSH

body2000
JUDGMENT Ghosh, J. 1. This appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 8th May, 1990 whereby and under the writ petition filed by the petitioner and registered as Civil Order No. 8664 (W) of 1988 was dismissed. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner challenged the notice of superannuation dated 26th July, 1988 whereby and under it was stated that the petitioner will retire from service owing to attaining the age of superannuation on 31st July, 1988. This challenge was thrown on the ground that the petitioner's date of birth is 7th July, 1935 and not 7th July, 1928 on the basis whereof the impugned notice of superannuation had been issued. 3. It was the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that by a notice dated 13th August, 1984, the respondent No. 3 directed the petitioner to appear before him on 20th August, 1984 and, accordingly, the petitioner appeared and produced his School Leaving Certificate showing his date of birth as on 7th July, 1935 and, accordingly, the respondent No.3 by an order dated 28th August, 1984 confirmed the date of birth of the petitioner as 7th July, 1935. Thereafter, by a Memo dated 19th November, 1984, the respondent No.4 directed the petitioner to appear before him on 23rd November, 1984 as in the service roll of the petitioner there was overwriting. Subsequent thereto on 24th February, 1985. the respondent No.5 calculated the age of the petitioner as 49 years 7 months and 18 days considering the date of birth of the petitioner to be 7th July, 1935. The petitioner was due to retire on completion of the age of 60 years and on 31st July, 1988, the petitioner did not complete 60 years. 4. In the affidavit-in opposition, it was the case of the respondents that the petitioner had produced a Horoscope at the time of his entrance in the service and on the basis thereof his date of birth was noted as 7th July, 1928. That date was altered to 7th July, 1935 by the Officer-in-Charge (Land Reforms), Tamluk on the basis of the subject School Leaving Certificate. That alteration was sent for approval to the Additional District Magistrate and he approved the same although he had no authority to do so. That date was altered to 7th July, 1935 by the Officer-in-Charge (Land Reforms), Tamluk on the basis of the subject School Leaving Certificate. That alteration was sent for approval to the Additional District Magistrate and he approved the same although he had no authority to do so. When the matter was noticed by the respondent No.2, he sent the matter for review to the respondent No.4, who was the appointing authority. On 26th February, 1985, the respondent No, 4 reviewed the case after giving the petitioner personal hearing. On verification he found that the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner was not genuine as it revealed upon enquiry made by the Senior Land Reforms Officer that the school records of the concerned school had been destroyed by flood in 1978. Accordingly, the original recording of the date of birth of the petitioner as 7th July, 1928 had been restored with the due approval of the respondent No.2 on the basis of the report of the respondent No.4. 5. From the judgment of the learned Single Judge, it appears that the service roll of the petitioner as well as other relevant records were produced before the learned Single Judge for perusal. The learned Single Judge found that the same was prepared in 1970 and it was then recorded that the date of birth of the petitioner is 7th July, 1928. The petitioner signed the said service roll. The Additional District Magistrate, the respondent No.3 by Memo dated 13th August, 1984 directed the petitioner to appear before him. He then forwarded the service roll of the petitioner and few others to the Sub-Divisional Land Reforms Officer, Tamluk for confirmation of the date of birth of such persons including that of the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Land Reforms Officer sent a report to the Additional District Magistrate in which he intimated that according to School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner, the date of birth of the petitioner is 7th July, 1935. Sub-Divisional Land Reforms Officer then corrected the original date of birth recorded as 7th July, 1928 to 7th July, 1935, No enquiry was made with regard to the genuineness of the School Leaving Certificate. The approval of the Collector was not obtained he also did not approve the same. That correction was approved by the respondent No.3. Subsequently, the Collector directed the Sub-Divisional Land Reforms Officer to make review of the case. The approval of the Collector was not obtained he also did not approve the same. That correction was approved by the respondent No.3. Subsequently, the Collector directed the Sub-Divisional Land Reforms Officer to make review of the case. The petitioner was given notice in regard thereto. When the petitioner once again produced the School Leaving Certificate, the matter was then further enquired upon and it was revealed that the School Leaving Certificate was not genuine and on the basis thereof the original date of birth was restored. 6. The learned Single Judge held that there was no just reason to alter the date of birth as was originally recorded. The learned Single Judge further held that this alteration was made by a person who was not authorized to do so. For these reasons, the learned Single Judge did not entertain the writ petition. 7. Against the signature of the petitioner his date of birth was recorded in his Service Roll as 7th July, 1928. The petitioner did not ask for alteration of the date of birth so recorded. There is no just reason why the respondent No.3 should initiate steps to alter that date of birth. The respondent No.3 was not the appointing authority. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said respondent was the custodian of the subject records. Therefore, way did the respondent No.3 initiate steps to alter the acknowledged date of birth of the petitioner after 14 years of such recording and acknowledgement? That has not been explained at all. This unwarranted correction was later on, upon notice to the petitioner, removed. While doing so an enquiry was made. The enquiry revealed that the person, who is said to have issued the subject School Leaving Certificate, has denied issuance thereof by him. We do not think that the respondents in the matter of removing such unwarranted correction in the facts and circumstances of this case at all acted unjustly. We, accordingly, uphold the judgment and order under appeal and dismiss the appeal without any order as to costs. Mathur, C. J.: I agree. Later-As prayed for, let xerox certified copy be supplied on proper compliance.