Safiya Malik

The Calcutta High Court has directed the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Paschim Medinipore, to conduct a fresh inquiry regarding a discrepancy in the recorded date of birth of an Assistant Teacher whose service was terminated based on conflicting government records. The case was heard by Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, who instructed the concerned authority to verify the petitioner’s claims and issue a reasoned decision in accordance with law. The court observed that two contradictory official documents reflected different birth dates for the petitioner, necessitating a detailed investigation. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to present relevant documents before the competent authority, which was directed to complete the inquiry within a prescribed timeframe and communicate its decision accordingly.

The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging multiple memoranda that resulted in his premature cessation of service and recovery proceedings for salary drawn beyond the disputed retirement date. The petitioner sought a direction restraining the authorities from interfering with his employment at Tukuriapat High School and allowing him to continue his service until his scheduled retirement date. The court, while disposing of the petition, directed the competent authority to undertake a full-fledged inquiry and determine the petitioner’s actual date of birth after affording him an opportunity to be heard.

Also Read: Supreme Court Holds Reservation of Land Lapsed Due to Non-Acquisition Within Statutory Period

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at Tukuriapat High School, Paschim Medinipore, on May 21, 1979. His date of birth was recorded as January 25, 1952, in his service book and official documents, including his PAN card, LIC certificate, and ration card. He was due to retire on January 31, 2012. The dispute arose when he submitted his pension papers, which included a Xerox copy of his school final certificate. Due to its illegibility, he was instructed to provide a duplicate copy. The petitioner stated that he had lost his original certificate on November 4, 2010, and subsequently lodged a general diary at the local police station before applying to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) for a duplicate certificate.

Upon issuance of the duplicate certificate, the recorded date of birth was January 25, 1950, instead of 1952. Relying on this document, the school authorities issued a memorandum on December 29, 2010, directing the petitioner’s cessation from service. Subsequently, a memorandum dated January 6, 2011, was issued directing the stoppage of his salary, followed by another memorandum on January 8, 2011, requiring him to refund the salary drawn from February 1, 2010, to November 30, 2010. The petitioner contended that he was not granted an opportunity to be heard before these adverse orders were passed and submitted representations seeking correction of the discrepancy in the duplicate certificate.

The petitioner also relied on a certified copy of the birth register extract issued by the Medinipore Collectorate, which recorded his birth date as January 25, 1952. The authorities, however, referred to the WBBSE’s 1968 records, which showed his birth date as January 25, 1950. The court examined these records and observed that while the examination form had been filled by the petitioner, the date of birth appeared to be recorded in a different handwriting and ink. The court recorded: "Upon verification of the original record as well as attested copy of the petitioner’s record brought by the respondent no. 4, it reveals though the form had been filled up by the petitioner himself but the date of birth recorded thereon appears to be written by someone else with different ink/pen."

The court further noted that a discrepancy existed between the birth register extract and the school board’s records. It held: "There are two Government documents showing two different dates of birth of the writ petitioner." The court determined that this contradiction warranted a full-fledged inquiry.

The State respondents submitted that the petitioner had misrepresented his date of birth while preparing his pension papers, prompting verification by the authorities. Upon confirming his birth date as January 25, 1950, from school board records, the authorities directed him to return the salary drawn beyond his retirement date. The respondents maintained that the petitioner was liable to refund the amount received for the period after February 1, 2010, asserting that his actual superannuation date was February 1, 2010, rather than 2012.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Upholds Employer’s Right to Accept Resignation, Declares Withdrawal Invalid After Approval Lapse

After considering the submissions and records, the court directed the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Paschim Medinipore, to conduct an independent inquiry into the petitioner’s date of birth. The court recorded: "The respondent no. 3 is directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner as made out in the writ petition thereof upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and all other concerned authorities and shall decide the issue with a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law."

The inquiry was to be conducted within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. The competent authority was instructed to examine all documents annexed to the writ petition and determine their applicability to the case. The court clarified that it had not adjudicated on the merits of the petitioner’s claim and that the competent authority must decide the issue independently. The court stated: "It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the claim of the petitioner in any manner and the petitioner will be at liberty to urge whatever points he wishes to urge by relying upon whatever records and documents he wishes to rely upon before the respondent no. 3."

The final decision of the competent authority was to be communicated to the petitioner and the Headmaster of Tukuriapat High School within one week of its issuance. The Headmaster was directed to act in accordance with the decision upon receiving it. The court recorded: "After the reasoned decision is arrived at by the respondent no. 3, shall communicate the same to the petitioner and the respondent no. 8, the Headmaster, Tukuriapat High School, Paschim Medinipore, positively within a period of one week from the date of the said reasoned decision and the respondent no. 8 then, in turn, shall act accordingly."

The writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs. It was further directed that all parties act on a server copy of the judgment uploaded on the official website of the High Court at Calcutta.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Bidhayak Lahiri, Advocate, and Ms. Bhaswati Lahiri, Advocate

For the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education: Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyyha, Advocate, and Mr. Bibek Dutta, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Jahar Lal De, Advocate, and Mr. Somnath Banerjee, Advocate

Case Title: Sankar Chandra Maiti v. The State of West Bengal and Others

Case Number: WPA 1786 of 2011

Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

[Read/Download order]