Ranjit Ruidas vs Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 5723 Cal

     79
22.11.2021

Ct. No.23 pg.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

WPA 9984 of 2021

Ranjit Ruidas Vs.

Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors.

Mr. Santanu Chatterjee ... For the petitioner

Mr. Bijoy Kumar ... For the ECL

The petitioner says that his father, Balaram

Ruidas, while working at Neamatpur workshop of Eastern

Coalfields limited (in short, ECL) as a Foreman, died-in-

harness on 10th February, 2019. The petitioner applied for

compassionate appointment after obtaining "no objection"

from his brothers. The petitioner's application was rejected

by a memo dated 25th November, 2019 on the ground that

the petitioner was "unfit for employment due to over age"

on the basis of the medical examination conducted by the

Medical Board, ECL on 5th August, 2019. The petitioner

says that as per the school records, the petitioner was

born on 6th March, 1986 and as such he was not of over

age when he applied for compassionate appointment. The

petitioner has also produced his birth certificate

wherefrom it appears that the petitioner was born on 6th

March, 1986, being the same date as appears in the school

records. The petitioner therefor on the date of rejection was

below 34 years.

The ECL ought to have proceeded on the basis of

the birth certificate while considering the petitioner's case

for compassionate appointment unless ECL had a doubt as

to the genuineness of the petitioner's birth certificate but

have proceeded to medically examine the petitioner to

ascertain his age without revealing the reasons to doubt

the age disclosed in the certificates. Technological

advancement has made medical examinations for

ascertaining the age of a person very effective but I doubt

whether the exact date of birth can be spelt out as in the

case of the petitioner through medical examination.

The rejection memo is also cryptic. It does not

disclose as to why ECL resorted to medical test to

ascertain the age doubting the birth certificate and the

school certificate. It is also not clear on what basis and

pursuant to what medical test ECL got the petitioner

examined by a Medical Board and such Board came to the

opinion that the petitioner is over aged disbelieving the

birth certificate.

Pursuant to the order dated 8th November, 2021,

ECL has produced a photocopy of a document connoted as

"Apex Medical Board, Age Assessment". Referring to such

document and the document at page 22 of the writ

petition, being a copy of the Form PS-3, said to have been

submitted by the petitioner's father, ECL says that as per

the declaration given by his father, the petitioner was 16

years old as on 1998. These documents termed as

"Particulars of Family" are said to have been signed by the

petitioner's father on 30th April, 1998. ECL says that if the

petitioner was of 16 years of age as on 30th April, 1998,

then he was more than 38 years old. In view of such

discrepancy, the Medical Board was constituted to

examine the petitioner. The Medical Board on examination

has also opined on examination that the petitioner's date

of birth comes to 15th January, 1978. As a result whereof,

as on 15th July, 2020, being the date of the medical

examination, the petitioner was aged more than 42 years.

The petitioner is, thus, overage for being considered for

compassionate appointment. ECL accepted the finding of

the Medical Board and has rejected the petitioner's

candidature.

ECL has relied upon a judgment and order passed

by a Division Bench of this Court on 15th January, 2019 in

MAT 130 of 2018 with CAN 997 of 2018, CAN 998 of 2018

and CAN 1007 of 2018 (The Chairman-cum-Managing

Director, Eastern Coalfields Limited & Ors. v. Panpati Devi

Lohar & Ors.) to submit that the declaration in the Service

Book by the father and the mother in that case was given

more weightage over the certificate issued by the Bihar

School Examination Board, Patna in respect of the

petitioner in that case. Relying upon such judgment, ECL

submits that the declaration in Form PS-3 should be given

more credence over the Birth Certificate produced by the

petitioner.

As recorded hereinabove, the Birth Certificate and

the School Leaving Certificate of the petitioner record the

same date. In the instant case, thus, the issue is whether

more credence should be given to the declaration in the

Service Book by the petitioner's father or the Birth

Certificate produced by the petitioner.

A copy of the Birth Certificate produced by the

petitioner and appearing at page 32 of the writ petition has

been issued under Sections 12 and 17 of the Registration

of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. This is a public document

under the provisions of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872. The recording in the Service Book is on the

basis of the information supplied by the petitioner's father

which may be a statement made by a rustic villager as

observed by the Division Bench in Panpati Devi Lohar

(supra). On the other hand, the Birth Registration is done

on production of documents and it should be presumed to

be correct unless contrary is proved in view of the

provisions of Section 85(c) of the Evidence Act, 1872.

Unless a contrary is proved, the Birth Certificate has to be

given more credence than the declaration given by the

petitioner's father in the Service Book.

In the instant case, since ECL has doubted the age

of the petitioner and has proceeded to have the petitioner

medically examined to ascertain his age, I think, without

going into the presumption as to correctness of the birth

certificate, a further medical examination should be

conducted by a government hospital as the result of the

Medical Examination already conducted is in doubt as it

opines about a specific date of birth in respect of the

petitioner.

In such circumstances, the petitioner should

present himself to be medically examined by a Board of

Doctors of SSKM Hospital, Kolkata as to his tentative age

as on the date of examination within a period of three

weeks from date. The Medical Super of SSKM Hospital,

Kolkata shall constitute the Board, if approached by the

petitioner and shall, after examination, forward a report in

a sealed envelope to the learned Registrar General of this

Court stating the results of the medical examination so

that the same may be placed before this Court on the next

date when the matter is taken up.

Let this matter appear on 20th December, 2021 for

further consideration.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)