Michael Zothanhuma, J.1) Heard Mr. A. Matin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Goswami, learned Additional AG appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.2) The petitioner is aggrieved by being released from service on 16.07.2010, vide Office order No. 155 dated 16.07.2010, on account of having attained the date of superannuation of 60 years on 30.06.2009.3) The petitioner’s case in brief is that while he was serving as Khalasi (R) in the Palasbari Gumi Project (WR) Division Mirza, the petitioner’s Service Book was prepared wherein his date of birth was recorded as 01.03.1957, in pursuance to an affidavit executed by the petitioner’s father which stated that though the petitioner’s age was shown as 28 years 8 months 24 days as on 01.03.1973, in the petitioner’s matriculation examination, he was actually born in the month of February 1957.4) As the petitioner was released from service on 16.07.2010, on the ground that he attained superannuation 26.08.2009, thereby implying that he was born in June 1949, the petitioner filed a writ petition registered as WP (C) 5780/2010 in this Court.5) This Court disposed of WP (C) 5780/2010 vide judgement and order dated 05.04.2018 wherein, this Court observed that “the moot question is whether the employee’s date of birth is 7.6.1949 or is 1.3.1957 as acted upon by the department, to retire him by the letter dated 16.07.2010.” On considering the various documents submitted by the parties, this Court in its judgment dated 05.04.2018 held that the controversy on the petitioner’s date of birth could not be resolved by the writ Court on the basis of the materials available. Thereafter, this Court, acting on the joint suggestion of the counsels for the parties that a reverification exercise should be undertaken with the participation of both the stakeholders and the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, directed the Chief Engineer of the Water Resource Department to undertake re-verification exercise to find out the correct date of birth of the petitioner. It also held that the retirement of the petitioner on attainment of 60 years as was ordered on 16.07.2010 (Annexure - B) by the Executive Engineer, will abide by the outcome of the finding of the Chief Engineer (Respondent No.2).6) Consequent to the above direction of, this Court in the judgment order dated 05.2018 passed in WP (C) 5780/2010, the re-verification exercise on the correct date of birth of the petitioner was undertaken by the respondent No. 2, wherein all the stakeholders and the Board of Secondary Education, Assam also participated.7) The respondent No. 2 thereafter passed the Speaking Order dated 26.12.2018, holding that the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 23 years 8 months 24 days as on 01.03.1973, instead of 16 years 10 months 10 days. The implication of the above conclusion made by the respondent No. 2 vide the Speaking Order dated 26.08.2018 was that the petitioner was born on 07.06.1949 and not on 01.03.1957.8) The petitioner’s counsel submits that the respondent No. 2, while undertaking the re-verification exercise on the correct date of birth of the petitioner, did not consider the petitioner’s application dated 21.07.2009, money receipt dated 24.07.2009 for correction of age as well as original certificates and Service Book of the petitioner prepared by the respondents, wherein petitioner’s correct date of birth was written as 01.03.1957. He further submits that while the petitioner was heard by the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 2 did not allow the petitioner’s counsel to make submissions on behalf of the petitioner. He thus submits that the respondent No. 2 did not consider relevant materials while coming to a decision that the petitioner’s date of birth was 07.06.1949.9) Mr. B. Goswami, learned Additional AG, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 – 4 submits that as per the judgment and order dated 05.04.2018 passed in WP (C) 5780/2010, the respondent had directed the respondent No. 2 to undertake the re-verification exercise to ascertain the petitioner’s correct date of birth and that the parties were to abide by the outcome of the finding of the respondent No. 2. He submits that a perusal of the Speaking Order dated 26.12.2018 passed by the respondent No. 2 clearly shows that that there had been manipulation of documents by the petitioner, besides the petitioner having conveniently lost his HSLC Admit card. He also submits that the original tabulation register and manuscript of HSLC candidates for the year 1973 were produced by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, wherein it was reflected that the petitioner’s age was recorded as 23 years 8 months 24 days as on 01.03.1973. He submits that when an autonomous independent body, who is in-charge of the Board examinations in Assam have shown with supporting documents, the petitioner’s age, the only option left would be to accept the same. The Additional AG also submits that the Board of Secondary Education, Assam had produced an application before the respondent No.2, which had been submitted to them by the petitioner on 21.07.2009 for issue of his original age HSLC Pass certificate for rectification of his age. The application was not considered as it was time barred. He submits that on considering all the above facts, the impugned Speaking Order dated 26.12.2018 passed by the respondent No. 2 should be upheld.10) I have heard the counsels for the parties.11) The facts, as enumerated above, shows that the issue to be decided is as to whether there was any illegality in the decision making process of the respondent No. 2. To have a clear picture of the direction passed by this Court in WP (C) 5780/2010, para 10 & 11 of the judgment and order dated 05.04.2018 passed in WP (C) 5780/2010 is reproduced below:“10. The controversy on the birth date on the basis of the available material is not capable of being resolved by the Writ Court and therefore, the learned Counsel for the parties have jointly suggested that a re-verification exercise should be undertaken with participation of both stakeholders and also the SEBA authorities. This appears to be the logical option for the Court as it is not possible to decide either way that the SEBA certificate issued on 21.7.1973 (Annexure-2) and the date recorded in the Service Book, should have no role on determination of the retirement age for the petitioner. At the same time, the records pertaining to the student who appeared in the 1973 HSLC examination which are enclosed to the additional affidavit filed by the SEBA on 13.6.2014 suggest that the birth date of the petitioner is 7.6.1949 and on that basis, he was correctly made to superannuate in July, 2010.11. Confronted with the above scenario, it would be appropriate to direct the Chief Engineer of the Water Resource Department to undertake a re-verification exercise on the correct date of birth for the petitioner. The participation of the petitioner as well as the SEBA authorities must be ensured in the process and close attention must be paid to the 1973 HSLC certified issued on 21.7.1973 by the Secretary, SEBA. The original certificate produced by Mr. Matin is shown to everyone in Court and prima facie, no interpolation is seen in that certificate. But surprisingly the contents of this certificate do not match with the other contemporaneous records relating to 1973 HSLC examination, which are enclosed to the additional affidavit of the SEBA. The retirement of the petitioner on attainment of 60 years as was ordered on 16.7.2010 (Annexure-8) by the Executive Engineer, will abide by the outcome of the finding of the Chief Engineer. It is ordered accordingly.”12) Consequent to the directions passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 5780/2010, the respondent No. 2 undertook the re-verification exercise to ascertain the petitioner’s correct date of birth. As can be seen from the Speaking Order dated 26.12.2018, all the parties including the petitioner were given an opportunity of hearing and submit documents before the respondent No.2.13) Perusal of the findings made by the respondent No. 2 in the Speaking Order dated 26.12.2018 goes to show that while the petitioner submitted his HSLC pass certificate, he did not submit his HSLC Admit card on the ground that it was lost. The Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Assam vide letter dated 16.07.2018 held that as per the records, the petitioner’s age was 23 years 8 months 24 days as on 01.04.1973. Further, the Academic Officer, Board of Secondary Education, Assam produced the original tabulation register (TR) and manuscript (MRS) for the year 1973 of the HSLC candidates, wherein the age of the petitioner was recorded as 23 years 8 months 24 days as on 01.03.1973. The Board of Secondary Education also produced an application dated 21.07.2009 submitted by the petitioner for issue of his original HSLC passed certificate for rectification of his age. However, the same was not considered by the Board as it was time barred. The findings of the respondent No.2 in the speaking order dated 26.12.2018 is as follows:“In compliance of the Judgement and Order of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, the petitioner Sri Jadab Chandra Mazumdar was requested to submit(1) H.S. L.C Pass Certificate (in Original)(2) Admit Card of HSLC Examination (in Original)Vide this Office letter No. CEWR (LC) 112/2010/Pt/2 dated 21/06/2018. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted his HSLC Pass certificate and reported that he had lost his HSLC Admit Card on 2/06/2018. Subsequently, the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Assam (SEBA), Guwahati-21 was requested vide this Office letter No. CEWR (LC) 112/2010/Pt/4 dated 27/06/2018 to re-verify for establishing the geniueness of the HSLC Pass Certificate of the petitioner.In response of the above, the SEBA Authority has reported vide letter No. SEBA/GEN.SUIT/31/2012/100 dated 16/07/2018 that as per record of the Office of the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, Bamunimaidam, Guwahati-21 in respect of the petitioner ”Jadab Chandra Mazumdar, Roll-Mirza, No. 941 of the HSLC Examination, 1973; Age : 23 years 08 Months 24 Days as on 01/04/1973 ; Result : Passed in IIIrd (third) Division.” The age 16 years 00 Months 00 Days as shown in the copy of Pass Certificate is found to be manipulated/false. Necessary action may be taken by the Department accordingly.However, the undersigned has gone through the above findings and decided to ensure the actual record and accordingly a meeting towards determination of the fact have been called for on 07/12/2018.In the aforesaid meeting, the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Guwahati-3 has asked Sri Jadab Ch. Mazumdar to submit all relevant documents in Original in support of his claim. Sri Mazumdar has reported that he don’t know where about of the original Admit Card and also he did not lodged any F.I.R for missing of the same. He also reported that he had not received the original H.S.L.C Pass Certificate. As such he had applied before the S.E.B.A Authority to issue the original H.S.L.C Pass Certificate, accordingly he had received the Original H.S.L.C. Pass Certificate from the S.E.B.A Authority which was submitted before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court as well as the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Assam.In this Context, Sri Golok Ch. Bora, Academic Officer (KSPIO), Board of Secondary Education, Assam, Guwahati-21 who have represented from the S.E.B.A Authority has produced the original Tabulation Register (T.R.) and manuscript (MRS) from the year 1973 of the H.S.L.C. candidates and it is reflected both in the register that the age of Sri Jadab Ch. Mazumdar is recorded as 23 years 08 Months and 24 Days as on 1st of March, 1973 instead of 16 years X Months X Days as on 1st March, 1973 as reflected in the certificate produced by the petitioner.The S.E.B.A. Authority has also produced that Sri Jadab Chandra Mazumdar submitted an application to the Secretary S.E.B.A, Guwahati-21 that was received by the S.E.B.A. authority on 21/07/2009 for issue of his original H.S.L.C pass certificate for rectification of his age. The application was not considered as it is time barred matter and on the strength of the record reflected in the MRS.The S.E.B.A. Authority has also keep stand on their letter issued vide No. SEBA/GEN/SUIT/31/2012/100 dated 16/07/2018 during re-reification process that the age 16 years 0 months 0 days as shown in the pass certificate is found to be manipulated/false and the actual age of Sri Jadab Chandra Mazumdar is 23 years 8 months 24 days as on 1st March, 1973.“14) On considering the above, this Court does not find any irregularity in the decision making process o
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
f the respondent No.2. Also there is no illegality in the procedure followed by the respondent No. 2 in the re-verification process. The records of the Assam Board of School Education also show that the petitioner’s date of birth was 07.06.1949. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, the only recourse left to the petitioner could be the Civil Court.15) The above being said, the petitioner in the present writ petition has taken a stand that his date of birth was 01.03.1957. However, in para 2 of the affidavit dated 08.07.1983 submitted by the petitioner’s father, it states that the petitioner was actually born “in 1957 in the month of Feb”. The above is again not in consonance with the petitioner’s stand in the writ petition that he was born on 01.03.1957. The petitioner cannot take different stands before different forums. In any event, the second last sentence of para 11 of the judgment and order dated 05.04.2018 passed in WP (C) 5780/2010 seems to indicate that the parties will have to abide by the outcome of the finding of the respondent No. 2. As this Court does not find any infirmity with the finding of the respondent No. 2 in his Speaking Order dated 26.12.2018 that the actual date of birth of the petitioner was 23 years 8 months 24 days as on 01.03.1973, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same.16) In view of the above reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed.