M.H.S. Ansari, J. - (1.) This writ application is directed against the order dated 20.1.99 passed by the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No.449 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the petitioner's application was dismissed. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ application before this court and by an order dated 28th June, 1997 a learned single Judge of this court directed: "Pending hearing of the application the respondents concerned are directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27th April, 1993, in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule 9 of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I and in keeping with the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch & another v. Bhupesh Chandra Karanji & another, reported in 1993(2) C.L.J. at page 74 : [1993(4) SLR 732 (Cal.)] , and after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The result of the hearing may be communicated to the petitioner and will also be produced on the next date of hearing. The petitioner will be entitled to assail the said report by way of a supplementary affidavit in this proceeding. While considering the matter, the respondents will also make available to the petitioner a copy of the report dated 26th November, 1993 prepared on the basis of the enquiry conducted earlier and the petitioner will also be entitled to file his School Leaving Certificate. Inasmuch as, the petitioner is due to retire on 30th June, 1994 on the basis of the service records which still remain unaltered, no interim order can be made and the superannuation of the petitioner will abide by the result of the writ petition."
(2.) The petitioner in the meantime retired from service. He had been given an opportunity of hearing by the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police in his order dated 6.8.94 recorded: "Perused his above representation along with all relevant documents regarding correction of his date of birth. It appeared that Shri Ghosh, before entry into Govt. Service as constable, submitted his verification Roll duly filled in by him and in the Roll he noted his date of birth as 1936 under his signature. During the course of so many years of services he did neither produce the original certificate containing his alleged correct date of birth nor did he submits any prayer for correction of the same. Moreover, as the date of birth was written in the verification Roll by himself under his signature and the same was noted in his Service Book the entry of which was also duly accepted by him as correct after putting his signature, he himself cannot absolve his responsibility in the recording of his date of birth even though it was incorrectly recorded as claimed by him later. As Shri Ghosh has already retired from service with effect from 10.6.94 his representation for alteration of his date of birth at this stage might be detrimental to public interest. Inform Shri Ghosh accordingly that his representation is therefore rejected".
(3.) Supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal questioning the said order, inter alia, on the ground that the Superintendent of Police did not consider the provision of Rule 9(5) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I as was directed to be done by this court in its order dated 28th June, 1994. The learned Tribunal passed the following order: "Considered the submissions of both the sides and also considered the materials on record. For correction of date of birth, a representation can be made under Rule 9(5) of WBSRPT.I, but it should be made on adequate grounds with documents. Normally, certificate from the school, is given in a requisite form by the authority of the school, but the present document being Annexure 'A' is not in that form and the date of the certificate given by the Headmaster is 12.9.91. From the Service Book it is found that the petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 1936, both in figures and words. There is no mentioning of the exact date or month. Educational qualification has been recorded as Class-lX. As per Rule 5(6) in such situation, the first day of the month of July of the year is required to be taken as the date of birth. The authority concerned have issued notice following the exact procedure and there is nothing wrong in this regard. There are several judgment regarding the correction of date of birth and in terms of Civil Appeal No.4725 of 1995, decided on 21st April, 1995 by the Apex Court, the date of birth once entered into Service Book voluntarily and never objected upto the fag end (say two years) of the service cannot ordinarily be entertained for correction".;