Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 407 (CAL)

Madhusudan Modak v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010-04-16

I.P.MUKERJI, PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY

body2010
JUDGMENT: 1. THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20th August, 2003 passed by the learned West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in case number O.A. 543 of 2002 whereby and where under the said learned Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein on merits. 2. FROM the records, we find that the petitioner herein joined the service in the year 1971. The date of birth of the petitioner mentioned in the Higher Secondary Certificate was subsequently corrected on the basis of a letter issued by the Headmaster of the concerned school in the year 2000. There is no dispute that after passing the Higher Secondary Examination, petitioner herein received the Higher Secondary Certificate from the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in the year 1966 wherein the date of birth of the said petitioner was specifically mentioned as 23rd April, 1942. Subsequently, on the basis of the aforesaid letter issued by the Headmaster of the school concerned. West Bengal Board of Secondary Education corrected the year of birth of the petitioner mentioned in the Higher Secondary Certificate on 24th July, 2000 i.e. after a long lapse of almost 34 years by recording 1947 instead of 1942. 3. ADMITTEDLY, after receiving the Certificate from the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in the year 1966, the petitioner did not take any step for correction of his date of birth and for the first time, requested the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education authorities for correcting his date of birth only on the verge of retirement i.e. in the year 2000. The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, however, most surprisingly corrected the year of birth of the petitioner on the basis of the letter issued by the Headmaster of the concerned school. 4. THE learned Advocate representing the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education also expressed his surprise for the aforesaid steps taken by the Board in the matter and on instruction specifically submitted before this Court on the previous day that under normal circumstances, the aforesaid corrections are not permitted by the Board. Mr. Kallol Bose, learned counsel representing the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education also submitted on the earlier occasion that after a long lapse of almost 34 years, it would not be possible to disclose the reasons behind such correction of the date of birth of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Kallol Bose, learned counsel representing the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education also submitted on the earlier occasion that after a long lapse of almost 34 years, it would not be possible to disclose the reasons behind such correction of the date of birth of the petitioner. 5. IN any event, the writ petitioner did not take any step immediately after receiving the Higher Secondary Certificate in the year 1966 for correction of his date of birth although according to the petitioner, said date of birth was not correctly recorded in the Higher Secondary Certificate. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation in the year 2002 and the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education unusually corrected the date of birth of the said petitioner in the Higher Secondary Certificate on 24th July, 2000 i.e. only 17 months before attaining the age of superannuation. The correction of date of birth at the fag end of the service career is not permissible under normal circumstances. 6. IN the present case, the writ petitioner joined the service on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in the year 1966 and only few months before attaining the age of superannuation took steps for changing the said date of birth recorded in the Higher Secondary Certificate. No explanation has also been given by the petitioner for the aforesaid long delay of almost 34 years for carrying out the correction in the date of birth recorded in the Higher Secondary Certificate as well as in the Service Book. 7. MR. Sen, learned counsel representing the petitioner referred to and relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Tarsem Singh, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 (paragraph 7) and submits that a belated service related claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. 8. THE aforesaid decision, in our opinion, has no manner of application in the facts of the present case since the petitioner himself accepted the date of birth initially recorded in the Higher Secondary Certificate for a period of almost long 34 years and decided to take steps for correcting the same only few months before attaining the normal age of superannuation. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any error and/or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal and, therefore, we refuse to interfere with the same. 9. THIS writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.