Dilip Kumar Seth, J. - (1.) When the Petitioner entered into service, his date of birth was recorded as on March 31, 1942 on the basis of the date of birth so recorded in the Admit Card issued by the Board. The Petitioner was appointed in the University concerned sometimes in December 1, 1969. It is alleged that the Petitioner had applied for correction of age as appearing in the Admit Card before he was appointed in the University concerned, namely, on March 15, 1969. Thereafter the Petitioner again applied on December 17, 1969 in the form of reminder. Thereafter the Petitioner again applied on July 5, 1978. Ultimately, the Board having not taken any steps, the Petitioner moved a writ petition, being W.P. No. 7822 (W) of 1999, which was disposed of by order dated May 18, 1999 directing the Board to consider the Petitioner's case after giving opportunity of hearing within a period of ten weeks from the date of communication of the order. It is alleged that the Board did not take any steps. Therefore, another writ petition, being W.P. No. 6040 (W) of 2000, was moved. This was disposed of on April 27, 2001, directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner in terms of the said order by a speaking order. On the basis of the said direction, ultimately the age of the Petitioner was corrected in the admit card as well as in the relevant certificate on May 29, 2001. Thereafter the Petitioner had made an application before the employer University for correcting the age recorded in the Age Register. The University by letter dated October 5, 2001, intimated the Petitioner that in terms of Ordinance 89(2) of Calcutta University First Ordinance, 1979, the prayer of the Petitioner could not be acceded to. It is this order, which has since been challenged.
(2.) Affidavit -in -Opposition has been filed. The case of the Respondents as made out therein is that the Petitioner had given the date of birth at the time of appointment in 1969 is March 31, 1942 which was accordingly entered in the Age Register of the University. The Petitioner appeared in the B.A. Part -I Examination in 1974. The Petitioner had given the date of birth as on March 31, 1942 in the form filled up for the said examination, which is Annexure 'P -l' to the Affidavit -in -Opposition. On the basis of the age so recorded in the 'Age Register, notice was issued to the Petitioner intimating him that he would be retiring on March 31, 2002. This notice was served upon the Petitioner on April 2, 2001. The Petitioner had made an application for correction of the age on June 20, 2001. It is contended on behalf of the Respondents that in view of the Ordinance 89 (2) of the Calcutta University First Ordinance, 1979, the age recorded in the Age Register cannot be altered on the basis of the subsequent correction of the age in the certificate since in terms of the said Ordinance, the age recorded in the Age Register becomes final and conclusive. That apart, the application has since been made for correction of the age at the fag end of the career though the Petitioner could have applied for correction of the age long before. He had relied on various decisions in support of his contention to which reference would be made at appropriate stage.
(3.) Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contended that the case, of the Petitioner is quite different and distinguishable from the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondents. In this case, the Petitioner had applied for correction of age even before he entered into service. It is due to the inaction on the part of the Board that the Petitioner could not make an application for correction of his age before the employer until such correction was effected by the Board in the certificate itself, which was the foundation for such correction. Since the age was recorded on the basis of the certificate and such certificate stands corrected, automatically the age stands corrected and the University has no alternative but to correct the age according to the certificate so corrected. The question of entry in the Age Register becomes final and conclusive depends on the certificate, on the basis whereof the age was so recorded. In the present case, it was not any other document, on the basis whereof the age is being sought to be corrected, but the very certificate, on the basis whereof the age was so recorded in the Age Register, and that having been corrected there was no 'alternative to accept the prayer of the Petitioner. He had distinguished each of the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondents.;