Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010026392023 2025:GAU-AS:8313 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/747/2023 DEBAJIT SAIKIA @ DABAJIT KUMAR SAIKIA SON OF LATE DHARMESWAR SAIKIA, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF PIRAKOTA BHARALUA GAON, DISTRICT- JORHAT, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 3:THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER JORHAT DISTRICT- JORHAT ASSAM. 4:THE REGISTRAR ASSAM AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT- JORHAT ASSAM. 5:THE CHIEF SCIENTIST SUGARCANE RESEARCH STATION BURALIKSON GAON Page No.# 2/7 PO- KOTHALGURI DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN- 785618 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S SARMA, MR D DAS,MR. C CHAKRAVARTY,MR. R HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AGRI. DEPARTMENT, SC, ASSAM AGRICULTURALUNIVERSITY BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 19-06-2025 Heard Mr. R. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Agricultural University, appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5, as well as Ms. G. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Agriculture Department, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. The challenge made by the petitioner in the present writ petition is to an order dated 06.09.2019, passed by the Registrar, Assam Agricultural University, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for change of his date of birth recorded in his service record. The petitioner has also assailed a notification dated 19.01.2021, issued by the same authority, releasing the petitioner from service with effect from 28.02.2021 on attaining the age of superannuation. 3. The petitioner herein was engaged as a Driver on fixed pay basis against a newly created post in the Sugar Cane Research Station, Buralikson, under the Assam Agricultural University (in short, “AAU”), Jorhat, vide an order dated 17.08.1987. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties in the said capacity. The petitioner Page No.# 3/7 disputed his date of birth recorded in his service records as “28.02.1961” and claimed “28.02.1968” to be his actual date of birth and demanded rectification of the same. The petitioner in this connection placed reliance of a School Leaving/Transfer Certificate dated 27.01.1992 issued from the school he last studied. The Registrar, AAU, vide a communication 25.09.2018, required the District Elementary Education Officer, Jorhat, to verify the School Leaving Certificate/Transfer Certificate produced by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner’s date of birth was recorded as “28.02.1961”. It was also highlighted in the said communication that in the service record of the petitioner maintained by the AAU, his date of birth was recorded as “28.02.1961”. Pursuant to such process of enquiry, the Headmaster of Barbheta Public High School, Jorhat, vide a communication dated 02.03.2019, informed the Registrar, AAU, that the School Leaving Certificate/Transfer Certificate dated 27.01.1992 issued to the petitioner by the Headmaster of the said school and countersigned by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Jorhat Education Block, was so issued on the basis of the records maintained by the school. Thereafter, the Registrar, vide a communication dated 17.07.2019, required the petitioner to submit the original School Leaving Certificate/Transfer Certificate bearing No. 92/90-31 dated 20.01.1992 for verification of his date of birth. Vide a communication dated 24.07.2019, petitioner responded to the said communication dated 17.07.2019 contending therein that he was not in a position to submit the original copy of the School Leaving Certificate/Transfer Certificate as the original copy of the School Leaving Certificate/Transfer Certificate had been lost by him and, accordingly, he had obtained a duplicate of the said School Leaving Certificate/Transfer Certificate from the said school in the year 1992 and had submitted the said duplicate copy of the School Leaving Certificate/Transfer Certificate to the authorities in the year 2016. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the Registrar, AAU, and after such consideration, the Registrar, AAU, passed the impugned order dated 06.09.2019 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth in his service record as “28.02.1968” in place of “28.02.1961”. In the said Page No.# 4/7 order, the Registrar, AAU, had noted that as per the records maintained by the office of the AAU, which included the School Leaving Certificate/Transfer Certificate dated 20.01.1992 issued by the Headmaster of Barbheta Public High School, Jorhat, and countersigned by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Jorhat Education Block, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 28.02.1961. It was further noted that subsequently the petitioner had submitted another Transfer Certificate issued to the petitioner by the same school on the same date, i.e. 27.01.1992. However, in the said certificate the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 28.02.1968. The Registrar further noted that in one of the certificates dated 27.01.1992 the date of the petitioner’s leaving the school was recorded as “22.03.1974”, whereas in the other certificate the date of leaving the school was recorded as “22.03.1981”. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth in the service record as 28.02.1968 in place of 28.02.1961 was rejected. As a corollary to the said determination and basing on the date of birth as available in the service records, the petitioner, vide the order dated 19.01.2021, came to be released from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 28.02.2021. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had instituted a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 1310/2021, challenging the aforesaid order dated 19.01.2021. However, the writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 01.03.2021. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner only on 08.02.2023, i.e. after a lapse of around two years from the date of withdrawal of the earlier writ petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. The contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition, when considered in the light of the affidavit brought on record by the respondent AAU as well as the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the only issue that has Page No.# 5/7 arisen in this writ proceeding is whether the date of birth of the petitioner, as recorded in his service book, i.e. “28.02.2961”, is correct, or, the date of birth as claimed by the petitioner, i.e. “28.02.1968” is the correct date of his birth. 7. It is the categorical submission of the authorities of the respondent AAU that at the time of the petitioner’s entry into service, his date his birth was recorded in his service book as “28.02.1961” on the basis of the School Leaving/Transfer Certificate submitted by him. However, the petitioner had, during the period of his service, disputed the said date and had claimed his date of birth to be “28.02.1968”. In support of his claim so made, the petitioner also furnished a duplicate copy of a School Leaving/Transfer certificate also dated 27.01.1992, issued by the same school, wherein his date of birth was recorded as “28.02.1961”. The respondent authority, in the affidavit filed in the present writ proceeding, has contended that the petitioner, during the course of his service, had submitted two School Leaving/Transfer certificates, both dated 27.01.1992. In one of the said certificates, the petitioner’s date of birth was recorded as “28.02.1961” and the date of leaving the school was recorded as “22.03.1974”, while in the other certificate, the petitioner’s date of birth was recorded as “28.02.1968” and the date of leaving the school was recorded as “22.03.1981”. The said contention made by the respondents in the affidavit filed by them has not been disputed by the petitioner by filing rejoinder thereto. 8. This Court, in order to ascertain the veracity of the above contention of the respondents, had required the learned Standing Counsel, AAU, to produce the copies of the said School Leaving/Transfer certificates furnished by the petitioner to the AAU authorities. Accordingly, today Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, AAU, has produced the said School Leaving/Transfer certificates before this Court. On perusal of the said certificates, the veracity of the contention made by the respondents in paragraph 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition stands affirmed. It is to be noticed that the respondents have taken a categorical stand in the matter that the date of birth of the petitioner, as recorded in his service book maintained by the AAU, was “28.02.1961”. Page No.# 6/7 Such assertion made by the respondents has not been denied by the petitioner by bringing cogent material on record. The reliance placed by the petitioner in support of his claim with regard to his date of birth is so placed, in addition to the School Leaving/Transfer Certificate dated 27.01.1992, on his Driving Licence and PAN Card, wherein his date of birth is recorded as “28.02.1968”. The PAN Card and the Driving Licence of the petitioner so produced on record were issued in the year 2016 and, accordingly, although the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded therein as “28.02.1968”, the same would be of no consequence inasmuch as such date of birth was recorded in the Driving Licence on the basis of the self-declaration of the petitioner. Further, in the PAN card also, so annexed to the writ petition, it is seen that the date of birth is recorded as “28.02.1968”. However, the same also would be of no consequence as because such date of birth was recorded in the PAN card on the basis of the petitioner’s self-declaration made before the Income Tax Authorities. Hence, in absence of any explanation from the petitioner as to how two School Leaving/Transfer certificates, bearing the same date of issuance, could have been furnished by him and as to how the AAU authorities had recorded his date of birth in his service book as “28.02.1961”, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the School Leaving/Transfer certificate dated 27.01.1992, wherein his date of birth was recorded as “28.02.1968” and the date of his leaving the school was recorded as “22.03.1981”, would not mandate acceptance. 10. 10. A dispute having arisen with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded in his service records, in absence of any reasonable and acceptable explanation being brought on record by the petitioner, it is to be held that the date of birth of the petitioner, as recorded in his service book as “28.02.1961”, was so recorded by the AAU authorities basing on the School Leaving/Transfer Certificate furnished by the petitioner at the time of joining in the service. Further, there is no material brought on record by the petitioner to demonstrate that the date of birth of the petitioner was unilaterally recorded by the respondents without any reference to Page No.# 7/7 the petitioner. 10. In view of the above discussion and there being no material brought on record by the petitioner to counter the contentions raised by the respondents that the date of birth of the petitioner, as recorded in his service records as “28.02.1961” was so recorded on the basis of the School Leaving/Transfer certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of his joining service, and the said contention also being in tune with one of the certificates produced before this Court today, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 06.09.2019, passed by the Registrar, AAU, rejecting claim of the petitioner for change of his date of birth, as well as the notification dated 19.01.2021, issued by the Registrar, AAU, releasing the petitioner from his service on attaining the age of superannuation, would mandate acceptance by this Court. 11. Resultantly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. The School Leaving/Transfer certificates produced by Mr. R.R. Gogoi are kept on record of this writ proceeding and marked as “X-1” and “X-2” for the purpose of identification. JUDGE Comparing Assistant