Babul Hussain Choudhury vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3886 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010198642022




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/6474/2022

            BABUL HUSSAIN CHOUDHURY
            S/O- LT. NUR MAHAMMAD CHOUDHURY, R/O- VILL- BIHDIA, P.O. BIHDIA,
            P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
            REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FISHERIES
            DEPTT., JANATA BHAWAN, A BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR, DISPUR, GHY-06

            2:THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
            ASSAM
             GHY-16
             DIST.- KAMRUP (M)

            3:THE DISTRICT FISHERY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
             KAMRUP
             GHY-16

            4:THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E)
             MAIDAMGAON
             BELTOLA
             GHY-29
             DIST.- KAMRUP (M

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A DEKA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
                                                                       Page No.# 2/4


                                 BEFORE
            HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

                                    O R D E R

28.09.2022

Heard Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Grade-IV in the office of the District Fishery Development Officer, Kamrup on 06.06.1984. The petitioner claims that at the time when he had applied for the post of Grade-IV, he had submitted a school certificate dated 03.03.1980, but the Service Book of the petitioner recorded the date of birth which was at variance with the school certificate that the petitioner had produced. The petitioner is now sought to be retired from service w.e.f. 30.09.2022 based on the date of birth that is recorded in the Service Book. Being aggrieved, this writ petition is instituted.

3. The petitioner refers to Annexure-1 school certificate issued by Patidarrang ME Madrassa, Autola in the Kamrup district which shows that as per the admission register of the Madrassa, the date of birth of the petitioner is 10.09.1966. According to the petitioner, if his date of birth is construed to be 10.09.1966, he would retire from service in the year 2026 and not in the year 2022.

4. The respondents on the other hand contends that the petitioner had earlier made a representation claiming his date of birth to be 10.09.1966, but by the order dated 12.09.2022 the District Fishery Development Officer, Kamrup arrived at his conclusion that if the date of birth is construed to be 10.09.1966, the petitioner had joined the service while he was 17 years 08 months and 26 Page No.# 3/4

days and accordingly the respondents were of the view that the said date of birth of the petitioner as claimed cannot be accepted.

5. Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand refers to a judgment of this Court dated 23.06.2015 in WP(C) No. 3755/2015 to substantiate that even if a person is appointed in a Government service prior to being 18 years old, the same cannot be a reason not to accept his correct date of birth.

6. It is noticed that the petitioner claims his date of birth to be 10.09.1966 based upon a certificate issued by the Headmaster of Patidarrang ME Madrassa, Autola. The law as regards establishing the date of birth as per the school register had been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 03.01.2019 in WP(C) No. 3056/2018, wherein it had been held that the certificate issued by the school authorities would not be a primary evidence to arrive at a conclusion as regards the date of birth that it may contain. The required procedure would be for the person relying on such certificate to give evidence through the authorities of the school who shall bring along the original register to establish that the date of birth depicted in the school certificate is to be accepted under the law.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to approach the District Fishery Development Officer, Kamrup and may present the necessary evidence before the said authority by bringing the authorities of Patidarrang ME Madrassa, Autola along with the original register to establish that the date of birth is 10.09.1966. Upon such materials being produced, the District Fishery Development Officer shall pass a reasoned order on the claim for the petitioner as regards his date of birth.

Page No.# 4/4

8. If the date of birth as claimed by the petitioner is accepted, the District Fishery Development Officer may proceed further as per law as regards the date of retirement of the petitioner. The Fishery Development Officer shall do the needful as provided hereinabove within a period of fifteen days from the day on which the petitioner would render his evidence before the said officer as indicated above.

9. We further provide that if the District Fishery Development Officer arrives at a conclusion in favour of the petitioner requiring his service to be continued up to the year 2026, the petitioner may be brought back in service after his date of retirement of 30.09.2022 and it will be for the authorities to take a decision as to what is to be done regarding the intervening period.

The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant