No Bona Fide Mistake Or Clerical Error: Calcutta High Court Dismisses DVC Employee’s Plea Seeking Rectification Of Date Of Birth In Service Book
|The Court said that once a duly constituted medical board assesses the age under the DVC regulations, and no clerical mistake is shown, the recorded date of birth cannot be altered at a later stage.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an employee of the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) seeking rectification of his recorded date of birth and revocation of his impending retirement. The Court held that in the absence of acceptable documentary proof at the time of appointment, the entry made on the basis of the medical board’s assessment was valid, and could not be changed unless a bona fide clerical error was established in terms of Regulation 21 of the Service Regulations.
A Single Bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy observed, “There was no bona fide mistake or clerical error in recording the date of birth in the Service Book of the petitioner. The recording was made pursuant to the said medical report on the basis of an available procedure for assessment of age of the petitioner recognised under the relevant Service Regulation of D.V.C.”
The Court added, “Regulation 21 of D.V.C. Service Regulation…provides that ‘an alteration in the date of birth of an employee can be made at a later stage only by the corporation, if it is established that a bona fide clerical mistake has been committed in recording the date of birth in the service book.’..In view of the said provision laid down under Regulation 21 only in case of a bona fide clerical mistake, if committed in recording the date of birth in the Service Book, then only it is permitted to be altered at a later stage.”
Advocate Uttiya Ray appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Sabita Roy represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner, a Group C employee of DVC, was appointed on compassionate grounds in 1995. At the time of appointment, he submitted a school-issued Transfer Certificate showing his date of birth as December 10, 1968. However, the certificate was not attested by the District Education Officer, as required under Clause 2 of the interview letter. As per the applicable rules, 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 birth was recorded in the Service Book as June 13, 1965.
In 1999, the Petitioner applied for correction of the date of birth, relying again on the previously submitted Transfer Certificate, now duly attested. He made further representations in 2023 and 2025, producing Aadhaar, PAN Card, Voter ID, and an affidavit to support his claimed date of birth. DVC rejected his request through an order, maintaining that the original entry based on the medical board was final and in compliance with the regulations.
Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the High Court seeking correction of the date of birth to December 10, 1968, and cancellation of the notice of retirement issued to him.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court considered Clause 2 of the interview letter and DVC’s Circular dated January 29, 1985, both of which required either a duly attested Transfer Certificate or, failing that, a medical assessment.
The Court noted that the entry made on the basis of the medical board’s report was valid under the applicable regulatory scheme, stating, “There are two independent provisions… If the first provision fails then the second provision applies. Thus, there is no conflict between the two.”
The Court found that the Petitioner failed to provide the attested certificate at the time of appointment. “The age of the petitioner was assessed by the medical board by virtue of an independent assessment method which was recognised in the regulation of D.V.C.”¸ the Court added.
The Bench noted that Regulation 21 only permits correction in cases of clerical error, which was not made out in the present case. It observed, “Only in case of a bona fide clerical mistake, if committed in recording the date of birth in the Service Book, then only it is permitted to be altered. From the facts… no such bona fide clerical mistake has been committed in the instant case.”
The Court further noted, “The medical report has never been challenged… The finding of the medical board having been crystalised and after attaining its finality, the appointment was provided to the petitioner…”
Citing judicial restraint in interfering with expert determinations, the Court observed, “The law is well settled that, Court cannot sit in appeal on a decision and opinion of experts neither the Court can substitute an expert’s opinion… This is not such a case.”
The Court declined to interfere with the notice of retirement issued to the Petitioner, holding, “All other contentions… are not required to be considered… the Date of Retirement of the petitioner, as scheduled, is not interfered with.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Cause Title: Gangadhar Mondal v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.A. 11453 of 2025)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Uttiya Ray, Anima Maiti
Respondents: Advocates Sabita Roy, Pratik Majumder