Calcutta High Court Dismisses DVC Employee’s Plea Seeking Rectification Of Date Of Birth In Service Book
The Calcutta Excessive Court docket dismissed a writ petition filed by an worker of the Damodar Valley Company (DVC) looking for rectification of his recorded date of delivery and revocation of his impending retirement. The Court docket held that within the absence of acceptable documentary proof on the time of appointment, the entry made on the idea of the medical board’s evaluation was legitimate, and couldn’t be modified except a bona fide clerical error was established by way of Regulation 21 of the Service Laws.
A Single Bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy noticed, “There was no bona fide mistake or clerical error in recording the date of delivery within the Service Ebook of the petitioner. The recording was made pursuant to the stated medical report on the idea of an obtainable process for evaluation of age of the petitioner recognised underneath the related Service Regulation of D.V.C.”
The Court docket added, “Regulation 21 of D.V.C. Service Regulation…supplies that ‘an alteration within the date of delivery of an worker will be made at a later stage solely by the company, if it’s established {that a} bona fide clerical mistake has been dedicated in recording the date of delivery within the service guide.’..In view of the stated provision laid down underneath Regulation 21 solely in case of a bona fide clerical mistake, if dedicated in recording the date of delivery within the Service Ebook, then solely it’s permitted to be altered at a later stage.”
Advocate Uttiya Ray appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Sabita Roy represented the Respondents.
Temporary Details
The Petitioner, a Group C worker of DVC, was appointed on compassionate grounds in 1995. On the time of appointment, he submitted a school-issued Switch Certificates exhibiting his date of delivery as December 10, 1968. Nevertheless, the certificates was not attested by the District Training Officer, as required underneath Clause 2 of the interview letter. As per the relevant guidelines, DVC referred the Petitioner to a medical board, which assessed his age as 30 years as on June 12, 1995, and accordingly, his date of delivery was recorded within the Service Ebook as June 13, 1965.
In 1999, the Petitioner utilized for correction of the date of delivery, relying once more on the beforehand submitted Switch Certificates, now duly attested. He made additional representations in 2023 and 2025, producing Aadhaar, PAN Card, Voter ID, and an affidavit to assist his claimed date of delivery. DVC rejected his request by way of an order, sustaining that the unique entry based mostly on the medical board was remaining and in compliance with the laws.
Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the Excessive Court docket looking for correction of the date of delivery to December 10, 1968, and cancellation of the discover of retirement issued to him.
Reasoning of the Court docket
The Court docket thought-about Clause 2 of the interview letter and DVC’s Round dated January 29, 1985, each of which required both a duly attested Switch Certificates or, failing that, a medical evaluation.
The Court docket famous that the entry made on the idea of the medical board’s report was legitimate underneath the relevant regulatory scheme, stating, “There are two impartial provisions… If the first provision fails then the second provision applies. Thus, there isn’t any battle between the 2.”
The Court docket discovered that the Petitioner failed to offer the attested certificates on the time of appointment. “The age of the petitioner was assessed by the medical board by advantage of an impartial evaluation technique which was recognised within the regulation of D.V.C.”¸ the Court docket added.
The Bench famous that Regulation 21 solely permits correction in circumstances of clerical error, which was not made out within the current case. It noticed, “Solely in case of a bona fide clerical mistake, if dedicated in recording the date of delivery within the Service Ebook, then solely it’s permitted to be altered. From the info… no such bona fide clerical mistake has been dedicated within the instantaneous case.”
The Court docket additional famous, “The medical report has by no means been challenged… The discovering of the medical board having been crystalised and after attaining its finality, the appointment was supplied to the petitioner…”
Citing judicial restraint in interfering with professional determinations, the Court docket noticed, “The regulation is nicely settled that, Court docket can not sit in attraction on a choice and opinion of specialists neither the Court docket can substitute an professional’s opinion… This isn’t such a case.”
The Court docket declined to intervene with the discover of retirement issued to the Petitioner, holding, “All different contentions… usually are not required to be thought-about… the Date of Retirement of the petitioner, as scheduled, shouldn’t be interfered with.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of advantage.
Trigger Title: Gangadhar Mondal v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.A. 11453 of 2025)
