B.K. Sharma, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the alleged premature retirement of the petitioner from service taking his date of birth as 12.04.1952 instead of 12.09.1957 claimed by the petitioner. There is no dispute that as per High School Leaving Certificate (HSLC) Examination Certificate of 1972, the date of birth of the petitioner is 12.04.1952. However, the petitioner after passing HSLC examination in 1972 and issuance of the certificate claimed his date of birth as 1.2.09.1957 and to that effect his elder brother Shri Nihar Ranjan Paul had sworn an affidavit on 22.02.1978. The said affidavit was sworn in before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Silchar. The case projected is that since the petitioner was appointed is LDC-cum-Typist in the office of the Commandant Battali on Training Centre, Dergaon in 1983 and to be precise on 26.08.1983, had his date of birth calculated on the basis of the said affidavit as 12.09.1957 been not accepted, he would have been over aged for appointment in 1983. In this connection, the petitioner has shown his age on the date of appointment as 31 years, 4 months and 21 days as against the permissible upper age limit of 30 years. However, in the process the petitioner has conveniently withdrawn the process selection which included advertisement indicating the last date of submission of application form etc. There is no whisper in the writ petition as to whether on the date of submission of the application offering candidature, the petitioner was within the age limit.

2. There is another aspect of the matter that has come to the notice of this Court on perusal of the service book of the petitioner. As per the service book, the petitioner was appointed as LDA in the year 1978 against a temporary vacancy in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Cachar, Silchar. Thus the petitioner has conveniently omitted the earlier appointment as LDA w.e.f. 1978 in continuation of which he was regularly appointed.

3. According to the petitioner, the authority at the time of his appointment having accepted the corrected date of birth as disclosed in the said affidavit they are now precluded from taking the date of birth of the petitioner as 12.04.1952 and retiring him from service on that basis. The petitioner has also referred to the gradation list published on 20.03.2010 in which his date of birth was shown as 12.09.1957.

4. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit denying the contentions raised in the writ petition. It has been stated that in the service book two dates of birth were recorded one is 12.04.1952 and the other is 12.09.1957. It is the stand of the respondents that the date of birth recorded in the HSLC Examination Certificate will prevail over the declaration made in the affidavit which was sworn in by the elder brother of the petitioner. It has been stated that the particular entry in the HSLCE certificate having not been corrected by the authority which had issued the same, the affidavit sworn in by the elder brother of the petitioner cannot have any bearing. The affidavit has also referred to the particular enquiry conducted in association with the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner was associated with the said enquiry and he had placed reliance on Horoscope, However, in the writ petition there is no disclosure of the said enquiry and participation of the petitioner in the same.

5. Have heard Mr. P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J, Ghosh, learned State counsel.

6. While Mr. Roy has submitted that the date of birth recorded in the service book could not have been altered without putting the petitioner to any kind of notice, Mr. Ghosh, learned State counsel submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the material suppression of fact. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dakshaprasad Deka v. Inspector General of Police, Assa