JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge is to the alteration of the date of birth of the writ petitioner in the records of the university. The contention of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Office Attendant, Library (Belgachia) on compassionate ground upon the death of her husband, late Haradhan Shaw under the university/respondent as per letter dated November 15, 1996 subject to the verification of her antecedents, physical fitness & satisfactory services etc. Thereafter the petitioner was directed to produce necessary papers for age verification, physical fitness etc. By a notification dated October 13, 1998, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as October 24, 1960. Thereafter, the Gradation List was prepared indicating the date of birth of the writ petitioner as on October 24, 1960 and date of retirement on October 31, 2020. Subsequently, the date of birth was altered to October 24, 1952 and in consequence, the date of retirement, on October 31, 2012. On getting such information, the petitioner submitted a representation on July 13, 2011 contending her grievance over change of the date of birth. In spite of that, the petitioner was directed by the university/respondent to submit the relevant documents for payment of retiral benefits in time. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. The university/respondent is contesting the said application by filing an appropriate affidavit-in-opposition and supplementary affidavit contending, inter alia, that the Gradation List was published in the draft form initially. Thereafter, it was made final after certain time. The Service Book of the writ petitioner had been prepared on the basis of the particulars furnished by the petitioner and the date of birth had been recorded as per affidavit sworn by the mother of the petitioner. Xerox copy of the Service Book furnished by the petitioner clearly indicates that there are some changes or insertion in respect of the column under the heading of ‘Date of Birth’. So, the record of that date of birth cannot be accepted. The correct date of birth of the writ petitioner as per affidavit of the mother of the writ petitioner is on October 24, 1952. Accordingly, the Gradation List had been prepared finally. So, the writ petition should be dismissed. 3. So, the record of that date of birth cannot be accepted. The correct date of birth of the writ petitioner as per affidavit of the mother of the writ petitioner is on October 24, 1952. Accordingly, the Gradation List had been prepared finally. So, the writ petition should be dismissed. 3. Having heard the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that there is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground upon the death of her husband, late Haradhan Shaw in the Group-D post in the university/respondent on November 15, 1996 and thereafter, the petitioner was directed to produce the necessary papers for verification of the date of birth and medical fitness. The petitioner complied with such directions and accordingly, the Service Book of the petitioner was opened. Necessary entries had been made in the column of ‘date of birth’ in the Service Book. 4. Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that the university authority had acted on the basis of an affidavit alleged to have been sworn by the mother of the petitioner and such affidavit indicates the date of birth as on October 24, 1952. The so-called affidavit as alleged to have been submitted by the respondent appearing as Annexure R-3 cannot be taken as genuine in view of the fact that, the mother of the petitioner, Kamala Shaw is an illiterate lady and she cannot sign her name. To that effect the mother of the petitioner has sworn an affidavit appearing as Annexure P-10 at page no.12 of the affidavit-in-reply. Therefore, the entry as recorded subsequently in the service record, cannot be accepted and the date of birth of the petitioner should be taken as on October 24, 1960. The other relevant papers, such as, Voter’s Identity card, PAN Card, etc. lay down the date of birth as to the year 1960 and as such, the respondent authority is totally wrong in making the subsequent entry in the Gradation List and also entry in the Service Book. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Amativa Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the university/respondent, has submitted that such contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted inasmuch as the mother of the petitioner herself has sworn an affidavit indicating the date of birth of the petitioner as on October 24, 1952. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Amativa Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing for the university/respondent, has submitted that such contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted inasmuch as the mother of the petitioner herself has sworn an affidavit indicating the date of birth of the petitioner as on October 24, 1952. In fact, at the time of filing the application for compassionate appointment, the petitioner herself had submitted the said application indicating the age which corresponds to the year of birth as in 1952. 6. Mr. Chowdhury has also contended that while the husband of the petitioner was in service, he submitted nomination forms for payment of gratuity, etc. to the respondent mentioning the age of the petitioner which corresponds to the year of birth as in 1952. 7. He has also submitted that the Marriage Registration Certificate of the petitioner indicates the age of the petitioner and if it is taken that the petitioner was born in the year of 1960 and marriage was held between the petitioner and the deceased employee in the year 1973, then it would reveal that the petitioner was married at the age of 13 which is not permissible and believable at all and as such, the university-respondent has acted properly in correcting the date of birth and the corresponding date of retirement in the service records properly. 8. Lastly, Mr. Chowdhury has submitted that this writ petition has been filed in the Original Side but neither the respondents reside within the original jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court nor the cause of action arose within the original jurisdiction of the Court too. Under the circumstances, the filing of the writ petition in the Original Side is totally wrong and for that reason, the writ application is liable to be dismissed. 9. The materials on record disclose that initially, the draft Gradation List in respect of the petitioner and others was prepared on January 1, 2005. Subsequently, another draft Gradation List was prepared on January 1, 2007 and then the final Gradation List of the non-teaching staff of the university/respondent had been prepared on January 1, 2010 wherefrom it reveals that the date of birth and the corresponding date of retirement had been changed to October 24, 1952 and October 31, 2012 respectively. Subsequently, another draft Gradation List was prepared on January 1, 2007 and then the final Gradation List of the non-teaching staff of the university/respondent had been prepared on January 1, 2010 wherefrom it reveals that the date of birth and the corresponding date of retirement had been changed to October 24, 1952 and October 31, 2012 respectively. When the draft of the Gradation List is prepared, it is open for filing objection and if any objection is raised, it is duly considered. After over of all such procedures, the final Gradation List is published. In the instant case, in support of the publication of the final Gradation List in respect of the petitioner, the university/respondent has relied on the affidavit sworn by the mother of the writ petitioner appearing at page no.23. Such an affidavit was sworn in January 9, 2006 and it must have come to respondent authority at the initiation of the writ petitioner. 10. In order to overcome the situation for the purpose of unlawful gains, in my view, the writ petitioner has taken the plea that her mother is illiterate and in that respect, she has filed an affidavit appearing as Annexure P-10 at page no.12 of the affidavit-in-reply. Such affidavit has been sworn on March 7, 2007 indicating that this affidavit was prepared subsequent to the publication of the draft Gradation List meaning thereby that such paper is the product of an afterthought to obviate the earlier affidavit. Moreover, the nomination paper submitted by the husband of the writ petitioner appearing as Annexure R in the supplementary affidavit on behalf of the respondent, indicates the age of the writ petitioner as 45 as on March 27, 1996 when the nomination for death gratuity etc. was filed. So, such insertion of the age of the petitioner in the said nomination paper indicates that the petitioner was born in the year 1952. Such nomination paper was submitted to the concerned respondent Authority when there was no question of appointment of the writ petitioner on the compassionate ground or the date of birth of the petitioner did not come to a dispute. There was no litigation in the year 1996 over the date of birth of the petitioner. So, in my view, such paper appears to be genuine and authentic indicating the correct age of the petitioner. 11. There was no litigation in the year 1996 over the date of birth of the petitioner. So, in my view, such paper appears to be genuine and authentic indicating the correct age of the petitioner. 11. Similarly, the marriage certificate appearing as Annexure R-5 does not describe that the petitioner was minor at the time of registration of the marriage held in May 1973 and such paper was signed as if the petitioner was major. This certificate also indicates that the marriage between the two having effect from February 1, 1971 under Act XLIII of 1954, an offspring Kabita Shaw was born on January 14, 1972. So this certificate can well also be considered as one that the marriage between the two was held as if the petitioner was major meaning thereby the date of birth of the petitioner cannot be considered as on October 24, 1960 in any circumstances. Therefore, I am of the view that the subsequent affidavit by Kamala Shaw is nothing but an afterthought and such paper cannot be acted upon. The date of birth as recorded in the Service Book as appearing in the affidavit-in-opposition as Annexure R-4 at page no.27 should be taken into consideration which lays down that the date of birth of the writ petitioner as on October 24, 1952 as per affidavit for want of any other better certificates/documents. The mother is the best person to say by affidavit about the date of birth of her daughter when other convincing materials such as educational certificates, etc., are not available. 12. Therefore, I am of the view that the university-respondent has correctly prepared the final Gradation List and that the university/respondent has rightly recorded the date of birth of the petitioner in the Service Book as appearing as Annexure R-4 at page no.27 of the affidavit-in-opposition. The contrary materials tendered by the petitioner cannot be accepted. 13. Mr. Ranajit chatterjee appearing for the petitioner has referred to the decisions of Shyam Lal v. Additional Commissioner & Ors. reported in 1992 LLJ High Court, Allahabad 855 particularly the paragraph no.9, Smt. Anima Saha v. The Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. reported in 1993 (1) CHN 100 , and G.M., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal v. Shib Kumar Dushad & Ors. reported in 1992 LLJ High Court, Allahabad 855 particularly the paragraph no.9, Smt. Anima Saha v. The Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. reported in 1993 (1) CHN 100 , and G.M., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal v. Shib Kumar Dushad & Ors. reported in (2000) 8 Supreme Court cases 696 and thus, he has submitted that when the appointment was given on the basis of date of birth given by the employee in the absence of any educational qualification certificate and all class IV employees were sent to Civil Surgeon and on the basis of medical examination the date of birth was recorded, after 20 years the municipality seeking to act on the original declaration ignoring the Civil Surgeon’s report is not valid. He has also contended that the opinion of the Medical Officer should be taken into consideration and so on. 14. In the instant case in absence of any educational qualification certificate, etc. the petitioner submitted affidavit of her mother in support of the age proof. Subsequently, she filed another affidavit by her mother lowering her age, which was not accepted. I think it had been rightly done. Question of medical evidence is not relevant in the instant case. Therefore, the said decisions are not applicable at all in the instant case. 15. At the close of the argument by Mr. Chowdhury, he has submitted that neither the respondents reside within the Original Side jurisdiction of this Court nor cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Original Side of the High Court, so this application is not maintainable and it should be dismissed. 16. Learned Advocate for the petitioner raised strong objection to this submission and he has referred to the unreported decisions of W.P. No.274 of 2012 which has been based on 1995 (1) CLJ 121 that the writ petition may be converted into one of the Appellate side. 17. Having considered the respective contentions, I am of the view that since the matter is pending for a long time and it was not pointed out at the earlier stage of hearing, at the close stage, instead of dismissing the said writ petition, it should be converted into one of the Appellate Side. 17. Having considered the respective contentions, I am of the view that since the matter is pending for a long time and it was not pointed out at the earlier stage of hearing, at the close stage, instead of dismissing the said writ petition, it should be converted into one of the Appellate Side. Accordingly, the writ petition is considered as one of the Appellate Side and the concerned department is directed to allot an Appellate Side writ number in the said application. Henceforth, the writ petition shall be treated as one of the Appellate Side. 18. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that writ of mandamus, orders or directions as prayed for, cannot be granted at all. Prayer for correction of the entries in the Service Book and Gradation List as sought for cannot be granted. 19. The writ petition is devoid on merits and the same is dismissed. 20. Interim order passed in the matter is hereby vacated. However, there will be no order as to costs.