IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Amiya Kumar Mookerji, J.
Sisu Ranjan Das - Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner of Police & Ors. – Respondents
C.R. No. 9618 (w) of 1978
Decided On : August 31, 1979
SERVICE - AGE - CORRECTION - MATRICULATION CERTIFICATE - WEST BENGAL SERVICE RULES, PART-I, RULE 9 - VALID DECLARATION - REQUIREMENTS - DATE OF BIRTH - DETERMINATION - EVIDENCE - RIGHT TO WORK - GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION - IRREGULARITIES - CORRECTION - ESTOPPEL - STATUTE - FRAUD - DISCRIMINATION - WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, sought correction of his date of birth in his service record according to his Matriculation Certificate. The authorities rejected his request, citing that he had suppressed his actual age to secure employment and that the correction would result in his being under-age at the time of appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner's declaration in the service book was not a valid declaration under Rule 9 of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I, as it lacked the required evidence and order from the appointing authority. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to revise his declaration, as required by the rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's declaration in the service book was a valid declaration under Rule 9 of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to have his date of birth corrected in accordance with his Matriculation Certificate? 3. Whether the authorities' refusal to correct the petitioner's date of birth was discriminatory?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A valid declaration under Rule 9 of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I, requires the applicant to submit evidence in support of their declaration, such as a Matriculation Certificate, and for the appointing authority to consider the declaration and evidence and pass an order fixing the year, month, and date of birth. 2. A person's age is an objective fact that can be determined only on evidence, and such determination would affect their right to hold a post. 3. The authorities' refusal to correct the petitioner's date of birth was discriminatory, as other similarly situated individuals had their dates of birth corrected.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned order and issued a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to correct the petitioner's age in accordance with the Matriculation Certificate.
This Rule is directed against an order of the Commissioner of Police dated 16.12.78 wherein he declined to change the order dated 20.7.78 passed by his predecessor the then Police Commissioner S. Basu refusing to correct the age of the petitioner in his service Record according to the Matriculation Certificate.
2. On 11th April, 1940 the petitioner was appointed a Constable in the Bengal Police. On 19th of February, 1944 he was promoted to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. After partition, the petitioner was transferred from Bengal Police to Calcutta Police and Since then he is working in the Calcutta Police. At the time of first entry in the police service, according to the petitioner, his date of birth was wrongly recorded in his service book as 1.1.21 which was not the actual date of birth on the basis of the Matriculation Certificate. At the material time, the petitioner was examined by a Doctor who recorded the age after medical examination. The officer who prepared the service book of the petitioner also filled up the age in the service book taking the age recorded during the medical examination into account for the purpose of recording the data of birth in the service book. It is the case of the petitioner that the said recording was made on mere guess though the petitioner declared that he was a Matriculate. According to the Matriculation Certificate the petitioner's date of birth is 1st April, 1923. In the service book the said date of birth was not verified on the basis of any authentic document. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner's date of birth was wrongly recorded in the service book not on the basis of the Matriculation Certificate but by mere guess. The authorities also never asked the petitioner to produce the Matriculation Certificate though it was incumbent upto them to verify the date of birth on the basis of the Matriculation Certificate and to pass an order fixing the year, month and date or birth. The petitioner came to know from the Calcutta Police Gazette dated 5.1.78 that the date of birth of one Sub-Inspector of Police Sri Sambhu Banerji was corrected on the basis of the Matriculation Certificate as it was wrongly recorded in his service book like that of the petitioner. On 27th of January, 1978 the petitioner made a representation to the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta praying for the correction of date of birth in terms of the Matriculation Certificate and to pass necessary orders for correction of the date of birth in his service book and other official records. On 28th of March, 1978 the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Head Quarters was conveyed to the petitioner on the representations made by him. The said order reads as follows :
"It is evident that at the time of recruitment the S.I., himself had declared his date of birth as 1.1.21. At that time he must have suppressed the Matriculation Certificate as he would have been ineligible for appointment. The tearing off the relevant portion of the Verification Roll form is also significant. The explanation of the officer that he was on deputation to the Home Anti Corruption Deptt., in 1956 for which he was unable to apply for correction of his date of birth is also untenable. The opportunity given by the Govt. in 1956 for reconciliation of discripencies in the recorded date of birth of Govt. servants must have been circulated to all Deptts. and ignorance of the circular cannot be accepted as a valid ground in this case. In the circumstances the prayer of the officer for correction of his date of birth is rejected."
3. Thereafter the petitioner on 23rd of June, 1978 made another representation to the Commissioner of Police wherein he said that he could not produce the Matriculation Certificate from the Calcutta University as he passed the said examination in 1939. He was examined by the Civil Surgeon, Barisal who recorded his age 19 years during his medical examination. On 20.7.78 the then Commissioner of Police, S
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.