R.R.PRASAD, J. - (1.) Certain backgrounds of the case, which would have its relevance for deciding the issue involved in the case, would be necessary to be stated hereunder.
(2.) A vast stretch of land was acquired sometime in fifties in and around Maithon for construction of the project of D.V.C. For that, monetary compensation was paid to the landholders but it did not satisfy landholders as a result of which law and order problem created by them had had adverse effect on the projects of DVC and as such, Government formulated a policy in the year 1977 under which decision was taken to give employment to the land -losers to certain extent against the existing vacancies. Accordingly, a panel of 701 persons was prepared for giving employment. Some of the land -losers whose names did not find place in the panel, filed a writ application before the Kolkata High Court for inclusion of their names in the panel of displaced persons. Kolkata High Court allowed their prayer. Being aggrieved with that order, DVC challenged the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did find the order quite justified. However, the authority was directed to prepare a fresh panel, according to seniority, taking into consideration the educational qualification and also date of birth of the persons. In that light, a fresh panel consisting of 788 displaced persons was prepared and so far petitioner is concerned regard being had to the age of the petitioner, he was placed at serial No. 98. While making such panel, document relating to date of birth was asked to be placed. Pursuant to that, petitioner submitted school leaving certificate showing date of birth as 1.1.1948. Subsequently, when the petitioner applied for his appointment in Class III post in DVC, same date of birth was shown. Later on, petitioner did submit attestation form wherein petitioner again mentioned his date of birth as 1.1.1948. Again at the time of appointment when descriptive roll was prepared which bears the signature of the petitioner, date of birth was shown as 1.1.1948. After the petitioner was appointed as Junior Khalasi, vide letter No. M.PL/48/567 dated 16.2.2001 (Annexure 1), he was asked to produce authenticated copy of the school leaving certificate in proof of his age, to which it was replied by the petitioner, vide his letter dated 7.3.2001 as contained in Annexure B to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of DVC on 19.3.2008 that presently the said document is missing but within three months, he will be producing the same. At the same time, it was declared by the petitioner that his date of birth is 1.1.1948. When the said document was not produced, the petitioner was put before the Medical Board on 26.3.2002 for assessment of his age and the Board did assess the age of the petitioner in between 45 -50 years but the authority of the DVC did not accept the age which had been assessed by the Medical Board, rather date of birth of the petitioner was taken to be 1.1.1948 under Annexure 8 which has been sought to be quashed. Subsequently, Deputy Director of Personnel (PIS), DVC issued a letter on 28.7.2006 (Annexure 10) under which it was intimated to the persons including the petitioner that they will be retiring in the year 2007. The said letter has also been sought to be quashed.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring the appointment offer as contained in Annexure 1 submits that as per Clause (d) of that letter, candidates were supposed to produce authenticated copies of the matriculation certificates or school leaving certificates in support of their age and in case, if they fail to produce the authenticated copies of the documents showing date of birth, they will be put before the Medical Board for assessment of their age and the age assessed by the Medical Board shall be final and binding. According when the petitioner failed to produce the authenticated copy of the document, he was put before the Medical Board whereby Medical Board on 26.3.2002 assessed the age of the petitioner in between 45 -50 years but the authority did not accept the age of the petitioner as has been assessed by the Medical Board, rather has taken the date of birth of the petitioner as 1.1.1948 which action of the respondents is not only arbitrary but also discriminatory as in other so many cases, age assessed by the Medical Board has been accepted by the authority and as such, the order under which date of birth of the petitioner was taken to be as 1.1.1948 is fit to be quashed and in that event the petitioner be allowed to resume his duty till attainment of his superannuation as per the age assessed by the Medical Board.;