Rectification In Date Of Birth Of Employee Cannot Be Allowed When Age Is Determined Through Statutory Process: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has held that when the statutory process has been properly followed, any perceived procedural error or misapplication of law does not amount to a bona fide or clerical mistake. In the present case, as the petitioner's age was determined in accordance with the regulations applicable at the time of his appointment, the rejection of his request to rectify the date of birth cannot be considered illegal.

Brief Facts:

The petitioner, a Group C employee of Damodar Valley Corporation (D.V.C.), was appointed on compassionate grounds via an offer dated June 19, 1995.

The Transfer Certificate submitted indicated his age to be December 10, 1968. However, the certificate lacked attestation by the District Education Officer, as required, leading to a medical board assessment which fixed his age as 30 years (i.e., DOB: June 13, 1965). Based on this, his appointment was finalized.

On September 6, 1999, after getting the Transfer Certificate properly attested, the petitioner applied for correction of his date of birth. Although an identity card issued on August 7, 2019 reflected his DOB as December 10, 1968, no formal rectification followed. He renewed his request on March 15, 2023, supported by official IDs and an affidavit. After filing RTI applications in June 2024 and receiving a response in November 2024 directing compliance with Government of India guidelines, the petitioner made a final representation on April 4, 2025.

The Respondent based on his submitted proof of date of birth issued a Retirement Notice on April 9, 2025 in which the date of retirement was mentioned as June 30, 2025. A notice for settlement of superannuation benefits was also served. Despite the petitioner submitting another application for date of birth correction on April 25, 2025, D.V.C. rejected the request through a communication dated April 30, 2025.

The Petitioner submitted that the primary condition for determining the date of birth should be the Transfer Certificate issued by the school, duly certified by the District Education Officer. Only in the absence of such certified proof can the candidate be referred to a medical board for age assessment.

It was further submitted that since the petitioner submitted the duly attested Transfer Certificate and applied for correction of his date of birth within five years of appointment, his date of birth should have been rectified to December 10, 1968, replacing June 13, 1965. In support, counsel relies on two circulars: the Government of India circular dated December 16, 2014, and the D.V.C. circular dated January 19, 1985, both allowing such rectification under prescribed conditions.

It was further contended that D.V.C. had consistently recognized December 10, 1968 as the petitioner's date of birth, as reflected in the Identity Card issued by it. Having accepted this as correct, D.V.C. cannot now take a contrary position and was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's request for rectification of his date of birth.

In reply, the Respondent submitted that there was no clerical error in recording the petitioner's date of birth in the Service Book. Since the Transfer Certificate submitted lacked proper attestation, the age of the Petitioner was determined by the Medical Expert as per clause 2 of the Interview Letter issued on Jan 29, 1985 therefore his age was determined in accordance with statutory process.

It was further submitted that the petitioner was issued an Appointment Letter on June 19, 1995. However, he waited nearly four years before submitting an application on September 6, 1999, seeking rectification of his date of birth based on a Transfer Certificate attested by the District Education Officer after his appointment. This delay indicates a belated and afterthought approach, undermining the credibility of the request.

Observations:

The court at the outset noted that D.V.C. is governed by its own statute and Service Regulations framed under the D.V.C. Act. The D.V.C. Circular dated January 29, 1985, governs the petitioner's appointment, which took place in 1995. Therefore, his case falls under the category "For Future Cases" as outlined in the said circular.

On a meaningful and harmonious reading of the relevant clauses, the Court found two distinct and independent provisions: (i) if a candidate is a non-Matriculate, age proof must be submitted through duly countersigned documents like a School Admission Register extract or Municipal Birth Register; and (ii) if such proof is not available or valid, the candidate must undergo medical assessment. These provisions are not conflicting but sequential alternatives and must be applied independently, not conjointly.

Based on the above, the court held that in this case, the Transfer Certificate submitted in 1995 was not attested by the District Education Officer, as required under Clause-2 of the Interview Letter. Consequently, D.V.C. lacked valid age proof and referred the petitioner to a medical board.

It further observed that the medical report dated June 12, 1995 assessed the petitioner as 30 years old, and his date of birth was accordingly recorded as June 13, 1965 in the Service Book. This was neither a clerical error nor a bona fide mistake but a proper entry made in accordance with D.V.C.'s Service Regulations and a valid alternative procedure under Clause-2.

It further held that Regulation 21 of the D.V.C. Service Regulations permits alteration of an employee's date of birth only if a bona fide clerical mistake is established. However, in this case, no such mistake occurred. The date of birth recorded in the Service Book was based on a medical board assessment, conducted in accordance with Clause-2 of the Interview Letter and D.V.C.'s recognised procedure. Hence, the entry was made following due process and cannot be altered under Regulation 21.

The court held that “Court cannot sit in appeal on a decision and opinion of experts neither the Court can substitute an expert's opinion. The medical experts had opined in its said medical report and assessed the age of the petitioner.”

It concluded that when the records show that statutory procedures have been duly followed, any perceived procedural error or misapplication of law does not amount to a bona fide or clerical mistake. In this case, the petitioner underwent medical examination before a board as per due process, and the resulting report—never challenged—formed the basis of his recorded date of birth. Therefore, the question of clerical error does not arise. Given this, other contentions, including the timing and manner of the petitioner's application, need not be addressed.

Accordingly, the present petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Gangadhar Mondal Vs. Union of India & Ors

Case Number: W.P.A. 11453 of 202

Judgment Date: 25/06/2025

For the petitioner : Mr. Uttiya Ray, Advocate, Ms. Anima Maiti, Advocate

For respondent no. 1 : Ms. Sabita Roy, Advocate

For respondent nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. Pratik Majumder, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order