Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.30506 of 2025 Krushna Chandra Sahoo ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. - Dillip Kumar Mohapatra -versus- State Of Orissa & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Ms. S.Nayak, A.S.C. M/s Susil Kumar Pattnaik, S.mohapatra CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 22.01.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties and learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.4. Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:- i) Admit the writ application; ii) Call for the records; iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the opp.party no.2 and 3 to make necessary correction of the date of birth mentioned in the approval order Page 2 of 4. dated 4.5.2010 and 08.04.2021 under Annexure -7 and 9 in respect of petitioner i.e. 12.06.1974 in place of 12.06.1964 as per the recommendation of the Principal dated 10.04.2025 under Annexure - 12 and accordingly all consequential service benefits be released in favour of the petitioner, iv) And/or pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper for the ends of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the dispute involved in the present writ application is with regard to the recording of the date of birth of the present Petitioner in the approval order. He further submitted that as per the records as has been attached to the writ application at Annexures-1 to 6 the date of birth of the Petitioner is 12.06.1974. Drawing attention of this Court to the service book at Annexure-1, the admit card issued by the Board of Secondary Education at Annexure-2, School leaving certificate at Annexure-3, the HSC Examination certificate at Annexure-4 and College TC certificate at Annexure-5 and the Aadhar card at Annexure-6, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in all of the said documents the date of birth of the Petitioner is mentioned that 12.06.1974. He further contended that while issuing the approval order dated 04.05.2010 at Annexure-7 and dated 08.04.2021 at the Annexure-9, the date of birth has been recorded as 12.06.1964. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that such recording is an outcome of the clerical error committed in the office of the Director of Higher Education. Page 3 of 4. 5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the letter to the Principal of College dated 10.01.2024 and 10.04.2025, both at Annexure-11, submitted before this Court that the Principal of the College has already recommended the correction of the date of birth of the Petitioner which is an outcome of the clerical error and that the same is not in conformity with the original documents of the Petitioner. Since the Opposite Party No.2 has not taken any action on the request of the Principal of the College as well as the prayer made by the present Petitioner, the Petitioner aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Party No.2 has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although she has no specific instruction in the matter, however taking into consideration the fact that the Principal of the College has already made a recommendation in favour of the Petitioner and in the event no final decision has been taken on such recommendation by the opposite Party No.2 in the meantime, she will have no objection, if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner by taking into consideration the recommendation of the Principal as well as the original documents of the Petitioner, within a stipulated period of time in accordance with law. 7. Having regard the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record, further taking into consideration the limited Page 4 of 4. nature of the grievance involved in the present writ petition, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the recommendation of the Principal of the College at Annexure-11 and pass necessary consequential order. If required, it is open to the Opposite Party No.2 to verify the original records of the Petitioner and, in such eventuality, the Petitioner shall produce such documents before the Opposite Party No.2. Let the entire process be completed within a period of six weeks. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.2 be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. In the event the Petitioner is not getting salary before the aforesaid anomaly, the Opposite Party No.2 after reserving the said anomaly shall pass necessary orders in the aforesaid regard. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi