- (1.) Challenge is to the alteration of the date of birth of the writ petitioner in the records of the university. The contention of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Office Attendant, Library (Belgachia) on compassionate ground upon the death of her husband, late Haradhan Shaw under the university/respondent as per letter dated November 15, 1996 subject to the verification of her antecedents, physical fitness & satisfactory services etc. Thereafter the petitioner was directed to produce necessary papers for age verification, physical fitness etc. By a notification dated October 13, 1998, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as October 24, 1960. Thereafter, the Gradation List was prepared indicating the date of birth of the writ petitioner as on October 24, 1960 and date of retirement on October 31, 2020. Subsequently, the date of birth was altered to October 24, 1952 and in consequence, the date of retirement, on October 31, 2012. On getting such information, the petitioner submitted a representation on July 13, 2011 contending her grievance over change of the date of birth. In spite of that, the petitioner was directed by the university/respondent to submit the relevant documents for payment of retiral benefits in time. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(2.) The university/respondent is contesting the said application by filing an appropriate affidavit-in-opposition and supplementary affidavit contending, inter alia, that the Gradation List was published in the draft form initially. Thereafter, it was made final after certain time. The Service Book of the writ petitioner had been prepared on the basis of the particulars furnished by the petitioner and the date of birth had been recorded as per affidavit sworn by the mother of the petitioner. Xerox copy of the Service Book furnished by the petitioner clearly indicates that there are some changes or insertion in respect of the column under the heading of 'Date of Birth'. So, the record of that date of birth cannot be accepted. The correct date of birth of the writ petitioner as per affidavit of the mother of the writ petitioner is on October 24, 1952. Accordingly, the Gradation List had been prepared finally. So, the writ petition should be dismissed.
(3.) Having heard the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that there is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground upon the death of her husband, late Haradhan Shaw in the Group-D post in the university/respondent on November 15, 1996 and thereafter, the petitioner was directed to produce the necessary papers for verification of the date of birth and medical fitness. The petitioner complied with such directions and accordingly, the Service Book of the petitioner was opened. Necessary entries had been made in the column of 'date of birth' in the Service Book. Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that the university authority had acted on the basis of an affidavit alleged to have been sworn by the mother of the petitioner and such affidavit indicates the date of birth as on October 24, 1952. The so-called affidavit as alleged to have been submitted by the respondent appearing as Annexure R-3 cannot be taken as genuine in view of the fact that, the mother of the petitioner, Kamala Shaw is an illiterate lady and she cannot sign her name. To that effect the mother of the petitioner has sworn an affidavit appearing as Annexure P-10 at page no.12 of the affidavit-in-reply. Therefore, the entry as recorded subsequently in the service record, cannot be accepted and the date of birth of the petitioner should be taken as on October 24, 1960. The other relevant papers, such as, Voter's Identity card, PAN Card, etc. lay down the date of birth as to the year 1960 and as such, the respondent authority is totally wrong in making the subsequent entry in the Gradation List and also entry in the Service Book.;