ORDER :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against order dated 10.02.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 901 of 2021, whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed denying to interfere with letter dated 13.01.2021 by which the respondents-authorities declined to change the date of birth of the petitioner, as mentioned at the time of joining.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per pleadings made in the writ petition reads as under :

The petitioner was initially appointed on 17.3.2011 as General Mazdoor, Category-1, AA Ram Canali Unit, Katras Area under BCCL. It is the specific case of the petitioner that at the time of joining, he submitted all the educational certificates along with the prescribed format of identification certificate, verification roll and attestation form, in which, he has clearly mentioned his date of birth as 04.02.1972. It has been contended that in spite of the fact that in all the testimonials, the date birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 04.02.1972, his age was assessed by the Medical Board to be 47 years and 06 months as on 14.12.2010. Accordingly, date of birth of the petitioner was recorded in the statutory documents as 14.06.1963.

3. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner submitted his representations on 05.04.2018 and also on 09.08.2018 requesting to change his date of birth as 04.02.1972 in place of 14.06.1963, but it did not evoke any response and finally the respondent-authority by impugned order dated 13.01.2021 has declined to make any correction in the date of birth of the petitioner and hence, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 901 of 2021 taking the ground that there was no occasion for the management of BCCL to send the petitioner for assessment of his age before the Medical Board since in all service excerpts and educational testimonials his date of birth was recorded as 04.02.1972 and once it has been accepted the same ought not to be disputed and as such case of the petitioner ought not to have been sent before Medical Board.

4. The respondent has taken the ground that petitioner along with other 75 had raised Industrial Dispute for employment which was answered vide Award dated 14.08.2000. The said Award was challenged up-to Hon’ble Supreme Court and thereafter it was given effect to. It has been submitted that since there was no proof of date of birth/age at the time of preparation of award, the petitioner along with others were sent before the Medical Board for assessment of age, wherein his age was assessed as 47 years and 06 months as on 14.12.2010. It has further been contended that the report of Medical Board was duly accepted by the petitioner by putting his LTI and signature in vernacular language and thereafter he was posted as General Mazdoor in Category I at Katras Area of respondent-BCCL, wherein his date of birth has been mentioned as 14.06.1963. Thereafter the Form B register was opened wherein also the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 14.06.1963, which was acknowledged by petitioner by putting his signature and after serving for seven years the petitioner raised dispute regarding his date of birth, which is not permissible in the eye of law.

5. The learned Single taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties as also the case laws laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 10.02.2022, which is the subject matter of instant intra-court appeal.

6. Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that once the date of birth has been disclosed as 04.02.1972 on the basis of educational qualification, there was no occasion for the management to ask the writ petitioner to participate in the process of assessment of age by the Medical Board.

7. It has further