Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 95 (CAL)

Khurshida Khatun v. The State of West Bengal

2008-01-22

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2008
Judgment Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. This is an utterly frivolous writ petition. Its par.9 is as follows. “Your petitioner states that the respondent no.5 has not possessed the prescribed age i.e.30-40 years which has specified in the advertisement. The date of birth of the respondent no.5 is 7.2.1980 and support of the date of birth of respondent no.5 the birth certificate has given by school authority where admitted in class V. Neither the respondent no.5 is the link worker nor Trained Dai. The selection of respondent no.5 is wholly illegal and not sustained in law. The school certificate is annexed hereto and marked with the letter ‘P-6’.” The whole case of the petitioner is based on par.9 of the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner refers me to the school leaving certificate dated January 3rd, 2008 showing that Rubina, the fifth respondent, was underage for the post for which the Prodhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned published the employment notice dated December 10th, 2007. According to the employment notice only persons between the ages of thirty and forty are eligible. The petitioner’s case is that from the date of birth mentioned in Rubina’s school leaving certificate it is apparent that she was underage. The position is dispute by counsel for the state and Rubina. They have produced Madhyamik examination certificate issued by Rabindra Mukta Vidyalaya to Rubina showing that her date of birth is February 13th, 1970. The applications were to be submitted by the candidates by December 26th, 2007. Counsel for the respondents submit that with her application Rubina produced her Madhyamik examination certificate in support of her date of birth. It is therefore apparent that the school leaving certificate dated January 3rd, 2008 was not obtained and produced by Rubina, but by the petitioner. There is no reason for this court to go by that document which was never relied on by Rubina in support of her eligibility for the post. I do not find any prima facie case to entertain the writ petition. For these reasons, I dismiss the writ petition. There shall be no order for costs.