Radhanath Manna vs State of West Bengal

Pratap Kumar Ray, J.—Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

In the instant writ application, the Petitioner, the Headmaster of the concerned school has challenged the decision of the Deputy Secretary (Records) of the West Bengal Board of Scondary Education as communicated under Memo No. 08/1 dated April 26, 2002 whereby and whereunder it was communited that the representation of the Petitioner dated April 22, 2002 praying for correction of entry of the date of birth in the School Final certificate relating to the School Final Examination of the year 1959 was rejected on the ground that the President, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education declined to interfere with such recording of the date of birth in the School Final certificate at this stage. In the writ application, the

Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(a) A writ in the nature of Madnamus commending the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue his service as Headmaster of the said Samsara Patpara High School accepting the date of birth of the Petitioner as on October 1, 1944 after cancelling the order letter dated April 26, 2002.

(b) A writ or writs in the nature of certiorari commanding all the Respondents to certify and transmit all the records of this case to this Hon''ble Court so that conscionable justice may be administered to the Petitioner.

The writ application has been opposed by filing affidavits by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. The fact leading to the writ application is to this effect.

The writ Petitioner passed the School final Examination in the year 1959 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal wherein the date of birth was recorded as October 1, 1942. Such dated of birth was considered as a wrong every by the Petitioner and accordingly he affirmed an affidavit in the Court of 1st class Magistrate, Tamluk on May 11, 1963 by contending that the entry of the date of birth in the School Final certificate was wrongly made as the Petitioner''s date of birth as understood from the deceased father was October 1, 1944.

The Petitioner joined in the school service as Assistant teacher on January 2, 1967. The Service book of the Petitioner was prepared long after his entry into the service as per G.O. No. 1980-Edn (s) dated December 15, 1971 wherein by the endorsement as signed by the Headmaster on April 26, 1981 the date of birth was recorded as October 1, 1944.

It is the case of the Petitioner further that such entry of the Service Book was countersigned by the District Inspector of Schools concerned on March 24, 1999. The Petitioner filed an application before the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education praying for correction of the entry of the date of birth in the School Final certificate on April 22, 2002. In this application, the Petitioner annexed different documents in support of his claim that date of birth would be corrected as October 1, 1944. However, the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education by the order of the President of the said Board rejected the prayer for correction, which was communicated to the Petitioner by the Deputy Secretary (Records) of the said Board, which is the impugned order in this writ application.

In the affidavit-in-opposition as filed by the Respondents it is submitted that the Petitioner appeared in the School Final Examination as held in March, 1959. On January 5, 1959 the Petitioner filled up the form namely, application form for admission to the School Final Examination, 1959. In this form a declaration was made by the Petitioner on January 5, 1959 as addressed to the Deputy Secretary of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and in the particulars as were required to be filled up by the applicant, the Petitioner recorded his date of birth as October 1, 1942.

It is further submitted in the opposition that once the date of birth was recorded in the School Final certificate, there is no scope for making any correction unless such application is filed within a reasonable time and further, the same is processed through by the procedure as laid down in the circular letter for such correction. It is further contended that long after 40 years the application for correction of the entry of the date of birth in School, Final certificate, was not maintainable in as much as the Petitioner being the Headmaster of the School had the knowledge of rules and regulations and also had such knowledge when he joined in the school long back as Assistant Teacher in the year 1967.

It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that there was a gross violation of the principle of natural justice as the Petitioner was not heard. It is further contended that the President, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education had no power and jurisdiction to pass such order as the power vested to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education to decide the issue. In this point, submission has been made with reference to Section 28 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the ''said Act'' for brevity).

It has been further contended that due to the entry in the Service Book being verified by the District Inspector of Schools concerned, the Petitioner got the right for correction of the date of birth and such has been illegally denied. For violation of the principle of natural justice reliance has been placed to the judgment in the case of Jyoti Prakash Mitter v. The Hon''ble Jyoti Prokash Mitter Vs. Hon''ble Mr. Justice Himansu Kumar Bose, Chief Justice, High Court, Calcutta and Another, and in the case of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, On the issue of authenticity of the service record for adjudication of the matter reliance has been placed to the judgment passed in the case of Pratul Kr. Mukherjee v. Steel Authority of India 1996 (1) C.H.N. 347.

On the other hand it is the submission of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education as well as the State Respondents that the entry in the Service Book was a wrong entry. Save and except the certificates, namely, school Final and/or Higher Secondary certificate were date of birth was recorded, no other document was admissible for recording the date of birth in the Service Book in case of the person who has passed such examination. Reliance has been made to the Rule 11 of the Recognised Non-Government Secondary Education Pension Rules as introduced with effect from April 1, 1966.

A circular being No. 53/56 dated October 23, 1956 has also been relied upon to contend that in the Service Book the date of birth would be recorded on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation certificate. The learned Advocate for the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education further relied upon the instructions or the procedures for recording the date of birth in the admission register of the Secondary Education and alteration of such entry of date of birth as issued by the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education being the Circular No. 14/58 dated May 13, 1958.

Having regard to the contentions of the parties the only question as is required to be decided as to whether the impugned order passed by the President, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education is legal or justified.

Before considering that aspect the relevant rules and regulations are required to be looked into. In the representation filed by the Petitioner to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education on April 22, 2002, the Petitioner''s only prayer was to correct the recording of the age as appearing in the School Final certificate issued in the year 1959. The Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education by circular No. 14/58 dated May 13, 1958 issued instructions and/or procedures for recording the date of birth of a student in the admission register of a secondary school and for alteration of such entery of the date of birth.

Under Clause 5 of the said circular letter it appears that when a student is promoted from Class IX to X in a X-class school or from Class-X to XI in a Xl-class school, the concerned Headmaster/Headmistress is requird to follow a procedure by intimating the legal guardian of the student, a statement in the prescribed promforma showing the date of birth of the student as entered into the admission register. The legal guardian thereafter had the right to make a reply within July 15 of that year praying for correction of the date of birth, if any, in the event of any objection by the legal guardian, a procedure was set up for referring the same by different follows up action as mentioned thereto.

Clause 5 of the said circular letter reads thus:

As soon as a pupil is promoted from class IX to Class X is a 10-class school or from class X to Class XI in an ll-Class school, the Headmaster/Headmistress must forward to the legal gurdian of the pupil of statement as per enclosed specimen proforms No. Age/1, showing the date of birth of the pupil as entered in the Admission Register. This is most important. The statement must reach the legal guardian of the pupil by April 30 of the year in which the pupil is promoted to Class X or Class XI as the case may be and he should at the time be instructed in witing to inform the Headmaster/Headmistress within the July 15, if the date of birth has been correctly recorded.

If no reply is received by July 15, it will be taken that the guardian has accepted the entry in the Admission Registered as correct. If, however, the legal guardian of the pupil informs the Headmaster/Headmistress that the date of birth has not been correctely recorded and desires to have it altered, he should be asked to apply to the Board through the Headmaster/Headmistress of the school in the prescribed Form No. 18 (specimen enclosed) with the following fee and documents

(i) A fee of Rs. 15/- (fifteen).

(ii) Certified extract from the Birth Register or a Horoscope in original, or any other document mentioned in a para 2 above or in the case of a Christian student the Baptismal Certificate, if any....

Clause 9 of the said circular letter provides a scope for correction of clerical errors only by processing the matter through the concerned Headmaster of the School. Clause 9 reads thus:

If in spite of all possible precautions, any elerical error occurs, the fact should be reported in the Board either by the Headmaster/Headmistress of the School for necessary correction in the entry of date of birth of the pupil. The report should be accompanied with the following fee and documents, in original:

(i) A fee of Rs. 2/- (two). This fee is payable by the School and not by the pupil. If the application is made after 31st July of the year in which the boy sits for the School Final or Higher Secondary Examination for the first time but not later than 2 years from this date a late fee of Rs. 2/- is to be paid by the pupil, in addition to the usual fee of Rs. 2/- (two) to be paid by the School.

(ii) A fee of Rs. 25/- (twenty-five) shall have to be paid if a case of clerical error is reported to the board after the period mentioned in 9(1) above, but not later than five years thereafter.

(iii) An extract from the Admission Register of the school showing the first admission of the student in the school certified by the Headmaster/Headmistree of the school under his/her official seal and duly attested by the District inspector/lnspectress of School or the local sub-Divisional Officer or Govt. Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Magistrate.

(iv) The Transfer Certificate (in original) of the student, if he was admitted into the school on transfer from a recognised school.

(v) The Admit Card of the pupil if he was admitted or readmitted after failure at the School Final or Higher Secondary Examination.

(vi) A certificate from the Headmaster/Headmistress to the effect that it is a case of purely clerical error on the part of the school office.

(vii) No application for correction of clerical error shall be entertained after the expiry of the period mentioned in 9(ii) above.

Under Clause 10 to prove a case of clerical error in the entry of the school Final certificate, the document of the school could be called for. Hence, from the aforesaid procedures for correction of the entry of the date of birth as appearing in the School Final certificate, it appears that in terms of Clause 9(vii) no application for correction of clerical error could be entertained after expiry of the five years in terms of Clause 9(ii) of the said procedures.

Under Clause 11, however, under very exceptional circumstances the Administrative Head of the President, Secondary Education that is the President of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education may direct the Age correction Committee to accept a case usual prescribed fee, provided, in his opinion, it is considered as a fit case to be entertained. Under Clause 11 reads this:

In very exceptional circumstances, the Administrative Head of the Board of Secondary Education may at any time direct the Age correction Committee to accept a case with the usual prescribed fee, provided, in his opinion, it is a fit case to be entertained....

Hence, having regard to the specific provisions as laid down for correction of birth, the entry of the date of birth as was recorded in the School Final certificate of the Petitioner was required to be corrected following such procedures.

u/s 24 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ''the said Act'') the Board has power to set up different Committees, the Age Correction Committee is also one of such Committee u/s 24 of the said Act.

Section 24 of the said Act reads thus:

Other Committees. - (1) The Board may, with the approval of the state Government, constitute such other Committee or Committees as it may think fit and any such Committee may be composed wholly or in part of members of the Board.

(2) The Board may, with the approval of the State Government, delegate to any such committee any of its powers or functions and may in like manner withdraw from it any such power or function.

The Petitioner filled up the application form for admission to the School Final Examination, 1959 on January 5, 1959. In this application form as signed by the Petitioner, the Petitioner gave an undertaking that in the event of submission of any inaccurate and incorrect fact in such application, examination could be cancelled by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. Relevant undertaking of the Petitioner reads thus:

To, The Deputy Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal,105/7A, Surendranath Banerjee Road, Calcutta-14.

Sir,

I Beg leave to apply for permission to present myself at the ensuring School Final Examination. I undertake to abide by the provisions, bye-laws, rules and regulations of the Board relating to the examination and declare that I have filled up the application form correctly, if any of the statements made by me or on my behalf, in correction with my request for admission to the School Final Examination be found inaccurate or incorrect, of if I have in any way contravened any of the provisions, bye-laws, rules and regulations relating to the examination, I may be refused permission to sit for the examination. If such permission may be withdrawn or my examination may be cancelled, and the examination fee paid by me forfeited and I may be disqualified from appearing at any subsequent examination.

Yours faithfully,

Radhanath Manna, C/o. Amullya Charan Manna, Address (Vill.) Gangapati nagar, P.O. Tamluk, Dist. Midnapur.

Date the 5th January, 1959.

In the reverse page of that form the different particulars were required to be filled up by the Petitioner, who was the candidate of the said examination and in the Column ''date of birth'', October 1, 1942 was recorded by the Petitioner himself in his own hand-writing. Attested copy of such application form was produced by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education before the Court, which was also served to the Petitioner. Such recording of the date of birth of the Petitioner was followed in terms of Clause 5 of the said procedures. In the writ application there is no allegation by the Petitioner that such recording was incorrect recording with reference to the register of the admission of the School and/or any register of the Parimary School wherefrom the Petitioner appeared in Class-IV examination. Furthermore, no application was filed by the Petitioner immediately after the examination of School Final and/or within 5 years of the date of such examination following the prescribed procedures by referring the application through the headmaster of the school wherefrom the Petitioner appeared in such examination.

In that view, the application of the Petitioner dated April 22, 2002 as submitted to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education was not at all legal and valid, application in terms of the procedures for correction of the entry of the date of birth in the School Final certificate. After long lapse of 40 years the Petitioner submitted an application without following any procedures for filing such application. However, under Clause 11 of the said procedures the Administrative Head of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education that is the President refused to entertain the application, which is the subject matter of challenge of the writ application.

In support of the case the Petitioner has contended that the President did not consider the material records and did not place reliance to the documents as submitted namely, the affidavit of the Petitioner making a declaration of his own age as affirmed before the 1st Class Magistrate, Tamluk on May 11, 1963 and also the service record of the Petitioner wherein the date of birth October 1, 1944 was accepted by proper verification of the same by concerned Headmaster of the school on April 26, 1981 and was duly counter-signed by the District Inspector of Schools concerned.

On bare perusal of the service record as annexed in the writ application at page 40, it appears that the date of birth in the service record was required to be ascertained and entered in accordance with the instructions contained in Rule 11 of Pension Rules vide G.O. No. 1610-Edn.(S) dated July 18, 1968. Rule 11 of the said Pension Rules reads thus:

Qualifying service for''pension shall be counted up to the age of superannuation as laid down in the order of Government as amended from time to time. The period of service rendered on approved extension after attaintment of the age of superannuation shall also be considered as qualifying for pension.

Explanation: For the purpose of this rule the date of superannuation shall be reckoned from the date of birth on the basis of Higher Secondary/Matriculation/School Final Pass Certificate or other equivalent pass Certificates. In the case of thus employees whose date of Birth cannot be assertained from any such certificate or who are not required to possess such a certificate, the date of birth entered in the Service Book on the basis of an affidavit shall be taken into account for the purpose of determining the date of superannuation. In case the year of birth is known but not the month, the first day of July of the year shall be taken as the date of birth. When both the year and the month of birth arae known but not the actual date, the 16th Day of the month shall be taken as the date of birth.

From the explanation of the said rules it appears that the date of superannuation should be reckoned from the date of birth on the basis of Higher Secondary/Matri-culation/School Final pass certificate or other equivalent pass certificate. It is further provided therein that in the event of person concerned, who had no such certificate, an affidavit on the issue of the date of birth as would be duly affirmed could be accepted.

In the instant case, the Petitioner since had passed the School Final Examination and joined as Assistant Teacher of the school in the year 1967, the Petitioner''s date of birth in the service record was required to be recorded in terms of the date of birth as recorded in the School Final pass certificate wherein the date of birth was recorded as October 1, 1942.

Hence under the relevant Rule 11, there was no scope to make any otherwise entry in the service record relating to the date of birth as October 1, 1944 even on the basis of the affidavit affirmed by the Petitioner since such Service Book was prepared in terms of the G.O. No. 1980-Edn.(S) dated December 15, 1971, which categorically provided under the column of recording of date of birth, that such date of birth should be ascertained and entered in terms of Rule 11 of the Pention Rules, which has already been noted in the earlier paragraph.

In view of the matter even Recording Officer that is the Headmaster concerned, who verified the same had no power and jurisdiction to make otherwise entry in the Service Book which is at variance with the date of birth as recorded in the school Final pass certificate. Furthermore, in the Service Book it is mentioned that the date of birth October 1, 1944 as recorded wherein was varified ''as per certificate''.

The Petitioner failed to produce before this Court, it any, such certificate wherein the Petitioner''s date of birth was recorded as October 1, 1944. An affidavit before an Exectutive Magistrate by the petitifoner as affirmed on May 11, 1963 surely cannot be termed as a certificate in proof of the date of birth of the Petitioner.

An affidavit before the Executive Magisterate is a self-declared document of the Petitioner contending that the date of birth as recorded in the School Final Certificate was wrongly recorded, such declaration of the Petitioner binds nobody and such affidavit had no legal value so far as change of Petitioner''s date of birth is concerned. Even prior to introduction of Rules and/or procedures for making necessary entry in the service Book in terms of G.O. No. 1980-Edn.(S) dated December 15, 1971, there was a circular letter being No. 53/56 dated October 23, 1956 issued by the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education whereby it is provided that the date of birth as recorded in the Matriculation Certificate would be considered as valid date of birth for preparation of the Service Book, the relevant circular letter dated October 23, 1956 reads thus:

Circular No. 53/56 dated the October 23, 1956,

From: The Secretary, To: The Heads of all Recognised High Schools.

Sub.: A record of dates of birth qualification etc. of teachers.

The undersigned is directed to state that the date of birth, qualifications etc. of a teacher should always be verified in reference to original documents like Diplomas, Marticulation Certificates etc. before an appointment letter is issued to him. Appropriate entries should be made in the Service Book of a teacher immediately after his appointment.

A verfication in the manner indicated above should immediately be made in all cases were no such verfications have been made already. It should further be noted that the age as recorded in the

Matriculation Certificate should only be accepted.

In all cases, a certificate to the effect ''verified and found correct'' should be furnished by the Headmaster or Secretary under such varified entries in the Service Book.

Sd/- A Gupta

for Secretary.

In that view of the matter the submissions of the Petitioners that when the Petitioner entered into the service in the year 1967 the Rule for preparation of service record in terms of G.O. No. 1980-Edn.(S) dated December 15, 1971 since was not at all seen the light of day, there was no necessity of following the Rule 11 of the Pension Rules to varify and ascertain the date of birth. Such submissions of the Petitioner will not help since there was a circular letter dated October 23, 1956 which stipulated the procedures for making entry in the Service Book about the date of birth by providing procedures namely, to follow the date of birth as recorded in the Matriculation Certificate.

In that view of the matter, the entry of the Service Book since was not properly verified on the basis of the School Final pass certificate so far as the recording of the date of birth is concerned, it has no value for consideration The Resolutions of the Manging committee which, were annexed along with the application dated April 22, 2002 in support of the Petitioner''s contention about the date of birth also has no value since it appears that the Managing Committee considered the affidavit of the Petitioner affirmed before the Executive Magistrate declaring his age as an order of a Court. In that view of the matter, it appears that there was no materials placed even before the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education for exercising the power in terms of Clause 11 of the procedures for correction of the date of birth.

It appears that the Petitioner joined in the Service in the year 1967 and the so-called affidavit before the Executive Magistrate was affirmed in the year 1963. No pleadings is forthcoming in that writ application that at the time of entry in the year 1967, the Petitioner recorded his date of birth in terms of affidavit affirmed by him and not as per the date of birth recorded in the School Final pass certificate and furthermore there is no pleadings in the writ application that the employer concerned accepted such affidavit as the valid birth certificate of the petitifoner.

In view of such, it is clear that the application of the Petitioner dated April 22, 2002 itself was a misconceived application as filed before the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education after 40 years the date of recording of the date of birth in the application form of the School Final Examination.

It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner very strenuously that the impugned decision was not passed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and no reason was assigned and furthermore there was avoidation of the principle of natural justice as the Petitioner was no heard. The point as taken herein will not help the Petitioner to succeed.

It is true that the Petitioner was not heard prior to passing the impugned order by the President, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, by not entertaining his application dated April 22, 2002. Under Clause 11 of the procedures for correction of date of birth, there is no rule for hearing any candidate prior to rejection of any application.

Clause 11 of the said procedures is a discretionary procedures vesting the power to the Administrative Head of the Board of Secondary Education to entertain any application at any time under very exceptional circumstances. The President, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education considered that there was no exceptional circumstances to entertain the application and accordingly passed a decision that the application was not entertainable at this stage. Hence, the qustion of violation of principle of natural justice in such exercise of the discretionary power is not attracted. Even if it is considered that the principle of natural Justice is impliedly incorporated in the rule as expressly it has not been excluded, till then such principle of natural justice is to be considered in the angle of prejudice theory. It has already been settled by the several Judgments of the Apex Court that the principle of natural justice is not any unruly horse.

It has been further held that the principle of natural justice is contoured and limited by the principle of projudice theory. In the instant case, the Petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court that the Petitioner was prejudiced on the issue in question. From the records it appears that the Petitioner himself signed the application form while appearing in the School Final Examination by recording his date of birth as October 1, 1942. It further appears that for the last 40 years the Petitioner did not take any steps to correct his date of birth if there was any wrong recording.

The Petitioner in support of his case did not place any document either to the said Board or before this Court which could be a proof of the Petitioner''s date of birth as alleged and thereby will make the entry of date of birth in the School Final certificate as incorrect entry. The Petitioner has only a document that is his own declaration before the Executive Magisterate long back in the year 1963 contending that his date of birth was wrongly recorded.

There is no affidavit by the parents affirming the date of birth of the Petitioner. The Petitioner himself declared his date of birth by way of an affidavit. That affidavit has no value as already held by me. In that view of the matter even for non-hearing of the Petitioner by the President, West Bengal Board of Secondary, Education, prior to rejecting his application, the Petitioner was not prejudiced.

The prejudice thereby now has fixed up its firm root in the natural justice principle. Natural Justice principle is now to be decided on the principle of the prejudice theory. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in Kumaon Mondal, Vikash Nigam Limited v. Girija Sankar Pant and Ors. A.I.R 2000 S.C.W. 3826

The Apex Court has considered this principle in different many cases namely in K.L. Tripathy v. State Bank of India (1984) S.C.C. 43 , Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, etc. etc., , Syndicate Bank Vs. The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Stff Association and Another, , Aligarh Muslim University and Others Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan, .

Having regard to such legal position since the principle of natural justice is now required to be considered in the angle of prejudice theory, this Court is of the view that without any opportunity to the Petitioner the President, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education did not commit any breach to such principle of natural justice.

It appears that the Petitioner in his application dated April 22, 2002 annexed all his papers and documents namely, Service Book, his affidavit affirmed before the Executive Magistrate on May 11, 1963, identity card as issued in his favour in terms of the representation of the people''s Act, his horoscope, Resolutions of the Managing Committee as well as the ration card, as supportive evidence of his contentions. Having regard to such, the President, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education did not entertain the application by his observation that ''application was not enter-tainable at his stage''.

It appears that the School Final Certificate was issued long before in the year 1959 and it is not the case of the Petitioner that there was a wrong recording in the admission register of the school. Save and except such, no entry of date of birth in the school final certificate can be changed and/or verfied by the authorities concerned. Since in the writ application, it is not the case of the Petitioner that there was otherwise recording of his date of birth in the school register and accordingly there was an incorrect recording of the date of birth in the school final pass certificate, there is no scope even before this Court to grant any relief to the Petitioner.

Having regard to such position and in view of the statutory rules which provides that the entry of date of birth should be made in terms of School Final, certificate, the prayer of the writ application is not legally sustainable.

However, the Petitioner has produced a document before this Court being a document of the year 1997 to satisfy this Court that in his application for post appointment approval as Headmaster, his date of birth as recorded in terms of his affidavit, was accepted by the authorities. Let xerox copy of the document be kept with the record. From the document it appears, that it was not signed by the concerned officer that is the secretary of the school and only signed by the Petitioner himself as Headmaster of the School.

In that view, this Court is accordingly of the view that the Petitioner himself prepared a document as per his own desire to mislead this Court.

Having regard to such position and the statutory rule accordingly this writ application stands dismissed.

It appears that the Petitioner passed the School Final Examination in the year 1959 and after long 42 years submitted his application praying correction of such entry and that too not on the ground of incorrect recording but on the ground that such date of birth was not his date of birth on the basis of his own declaration.

Further it appears that the Petitioner joined as Assistant Teacher long back in the year 1967 and he became the Headmaster of the School in the year, 1997. Since the Petitioner was working in the school as an Assistant Teacher he had the knowledge about the rules and regulations for correction of the date of birth of the school final certificte and also had the knowledge that the affidavit as affirmed by him before the Executive Magistrate was not at all a document to nullify the recording of the date of birth as recorded in the school final certificate.

In that view of the matter the Petitioner knowing very well his position prepared a document for raising unnecessary dispute and thereby influcenced the Managing Committee to take such resolution in his favour.

In that view, the Petitioner must suffer a cost of this proceeding. A cost of 510 Gms. is accordingly imposed upon the Petitioner which to be paid on equal amounts to the respective contesting parties that is the State Respondents, the school authority and West Bengal Board of Secondary Education within four weeks from this date, failing which an appropriate proceeding could be taken up by the parties.

Let urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates appearing for the parties expeditiously.