Gauhati High Court
Abdul Kayum @ Md. Mamun Abul Kayum ... vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 9 August, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010155352022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5115/2022
ABDUL KAYUM @ MD. MAMUN ABUL KAYUM BHASKAR ALI
S/O LATE ALAL UDDIN @ ALA UDDIN, VILL-KOUPATI GAON, P.O.-SILBORI,
P.S.-DALGAON, DIST-DARANG, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
REVENUE AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-
781006
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DARANG
MANGALDOI
P.O.-MANGALDOI
DIST-DARANG
ASSAM
3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
DALGAON REVENUE CIRCLE
DALGAON
P.O.-DALGAON
DIST-DARANG
ASSAM
4:THE MOUZADAR
PUB-SHIALMARI MOUZA
DIST-DARANG
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M H AHMED
Page No.# 2/4
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
09.08.2022
1. Heard Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, who
submits that the petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of
Gaonburah of Village-Koupati Gaon and Giladhari, Charge-5, Mouza-
Pub Shialmari, Revenue Circle-Dalgaon in the District of Darrang, in
pursuant to the Advertisement dated 18.05.2022 and the Correction
dated 26.05.2022.
2. The petitioner's counsel submits that even though the interview for
selection of the post of Gaonburah is going to be held tomorrow, i.e.
10.08.2022, the petitioner has not been called for the interview, even
though he has all the eligibility criteria for participating in the selection
process.
3. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner's father expired
as Gaonburah on 16.06.2021 and having all the eligibility criteria, he
submitted his application on 09.06.2022. He submits that in terms of
the Advertisement and the Correction, the minimum age of a candidate
for the post of Gaonburah is to be 30 years, as on 01.01.2022. The
petitioner's date of birth being 08.08.1990, as can be seen from the
petitioner's birth certificate issued on 30.03.1991, the petitioner was
above 30 years of age, as on 01.01.2022. As such, there was no reason
Page No.# 3/4
for the respondents not to call the petitioner for the interview.
4. Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.1
while Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel appears for the respondent nos.
2. 3 & 4.
5. The averments made in paragraph 4 of the writ petition is to the
effect that 10.02.1993 was recorded as the date of birth of the petitioner
in the school records by mistake instead of his actual date of birth, i.e
08.08.1990. Further, all the academic certificates and documents in the
name of the petitioner have recorded the petitioner's date of birth as
10.02.1993, which have not been corrected. In the meantime, the
petitioner has also completed B.A. from Kharupetia College in 2019
under Gauhati University.
6. Paragraph-4 of the writ petition is reproduced below:
"4. That, the aforesaid name of the petitioner was very long and that
is why he was renamed as Abdul Kayum and accordingly Abdul
Kayum was written in his school records instead of Md. Mamun
Abul Kayum Bhaskar Ali. But 10.02.1993 was recorded in his
school records by mistake instead of his actual date of birth i.e.,
08.08.1990 and accordingly in all the academic certificates and
documents this name and date of birth have been recorded as Abdul
Kayum and 10.02.1993 respectively, which have not been corrected.
In the meantime, the petitioner has completed B.A. from Kharupetia
College in 2019 under Gauhati University."
7. A perusal of paragraph-4 of the writ petition clearly goes to show
that the petitioner's date of birth has been recorded in all his
Page No.# 4/4
educational certificates as 10.02.1993 and the petitioner has not made
any attempt to correct the same till date. As such, this Court cannot
accept the petitioner's date of birth to be 08.08.1990, especially when
the same is a photocopy and is not in consonance with his educational
records.
8. In the case of Shah Nawaz vs. State of UP & Another (Criminal
Appeal No.1531/2011), the Apex Court in its judgment dated
05.08.2011 held that a School Leaving Certificate is also valid proof in
determining the age of the accused person. In the present case, the
petitioner has passed his Class-X Board Examination and as such, the
petitioner's date of birth recorded therein cannot be wish away, unless it
is corrected by a Competent Authority. Accordingly, till there is a
correction of the petitioner's date of birth in the educational certificates
of the petitioner showing his date of birth to be 08.08.1990, which
includes his HSLC certificate or a decision is taken by a Civil Court or a
Competent Authority that the petitioner's date of birth is 08.08.1990,
the petitioner's date of birth would have to be considered to be
10.02.1993. As such, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner had not
attained 30 years of age as on 01.01.2022.
9. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any
infirmity in the respondents not calling the petitioner for the interview.
10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
