01.07.2026 ADSL No.6 Ct. No.14 ss IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. No. 9509 of 2026 , Sulata Rani Rahut versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Arunava Banerjee Mr. Subrata Mukherjee …for the petitioner Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya … for the WBBSE Sk. Qareeb Ms. Ritika Mandal … for the respondent no.9 Mr. Brijendra Pratap Singh Mr. Nripendra Pratap Singh … for the State 1. By the present writ petition the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities for correcting/incorporating the actual date of birth of the son of the petitioner, i.e. 21st February, 1970 instead of 22nd February, 1966 in the record of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. 2. The petitioner contends that her son namely, Apurba Kumar Rahut was an Assistant Teacher of Taherpur Lalbahadur Shastri Vidyapith (H.S.), District Nadia who superannuated on 28th February, 2026. The date of superannuation has been wrongly fixed due to erroneous recording of date of birth of her son as 22nd February, 1966 instead of 21st February, 1970. On several occasions, the son of the petitioner visited the 2 school authority for correction of his date of birth in the Madhyamik Certificate but all in vain. The petitioner seeks for correction of the date of birth of her son in the records of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Mr. Arunava Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that previously the son of the petitioner approached this Court for correction of records pertaining to his date of birth. However, the writ petition as well as appeal before the Hon’ble Division Bench was dismissed. Since the mother is equipped with better particulars she has preferred the present writ petition for correction of date of birth of her son in the records of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. He seeks for appropriate orders. 4. Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education submits that previously the son of petitioner approached this Court for such correction of his date of birth. However, the writ petition was dismissed. Challenging such order, appeal was filed, which has also been dismissed. Hence, the issue relating to correction of date of birth of the petitioner’s son has been negated till the Hon’ble Division Bench. By the present writ petition, petitioner is now trying to open up a fresh case on frivolous grounds, which is not sustainable. She seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 3 5. Learned Advocate representing the school authority submits that on the previous occasion the school authority could not file the documents of the son of the petitioner. 6. This is third round of litigation. 7. Previously, the petitioner’s son namely Apurba Kumar Rahut filed a writ petition being WPA 1914 of 2024 seeking for correction of his date of birth. The said writ petition was disposed of on 2nd September, 2025 with the following direction : “5. The President, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education being respondent no.3 is directed to decide the application of the petitioner dated 12th May, 2022 which is at page 27 of the writ petition, seeking correction of date of birth of the petitioner by six weeks from the date of communication of this order.” 8. Pursuant to such order, the President of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education passed order on 5th January, 2026 dismissing the prayer of the petitioner’s son for change of date of birth. 9. The said order was challenged in a writ petition being WPA 3295 of 2026, which was dismissed on 23rd February, 2026 with the following observation: “10. Admittedly, the petitioner is due to retire this week and the writ petition has been affirmed and filed before this Court on February 10, 2026. By simple mathematical calculation, if the date of birth claimed to be proper by the petitioner, i.e., February 21, 1970 is taken to be correct, then fact remains that the petitioner appeared in the madhyamik examination in the year 1984 at the age of 14 years. The prescribed age to appear in the madhyamik examination is 16 years. No special permission has been produced by the petitioner to show that he was allowed to appear in the madhyamik examination at the age of 14 years.” 4 10. Challenging such order an appeal was preferred being MAT 403 of 2026 which was also dismissed on 6th March, 2026 with the following observation: “The argument of Apurba that initial representation submitted by Apurba’s father in the year 1983 ought to have been considered was discounted by the learned single Judge observing inter alia that no contemporaneous steps for such non consideration was taken on behalf of Apurba. The learned single Judge also observed that by simple mathematical calculation, if the date of birth claimed to be proper by Apurba, i.e., February 21, 1970 is taken to be correct then the fact remains that Apurba appeared in the Madhyamik examination of 1984 at the age of 14 years. Apurba submitted a representation for rectification of his date of birth only a few years prior to his retirement without any explanation whatsoever as regards such delay. The learned single Judge dealt with the factual issues and arrived at specific findings and we do not find any error in the same, warranting interference in appeal.” 11. Admittedly, no appeal against the order of the Appellate Court has been preferred by the petitioner’s son. 12. Therefore, the dispute regarding date of birth of the petitioner’s son has been decided by the court and has reached its finality. 13. The petitioner by the present writ petition is trying to agitate the self-same cause which has already been decided by the court, which is not tenable. Hence, the writ petition falls short of merit. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition being of his son WPA 9509 of 2026 stands dismissed. 15. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 16. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 17. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 18. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 19. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary legal formalities. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)