Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Snigdha Karmokar vs Contai Municipality And Others on 26 August, 2022
S/L. 14.
August 26, 2022.
MNS.
WPA No. 18993 of 2022
Snigdha Karmokar
Vs.
Contai Municipality and others
Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee,
Mr. Kamal Mishra,
Ms. R. Mukherjee,
Mr. Pratap Sanfui
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Nilanjan Adhikari
...for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.
Mr. Sudipto Panda, Ms. Munmun Tewary, Mr. Subrata Ghosh ...for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the birth certificate of the petitioner issued by the Contai Municipality indicates that the petitioner's date of birth is April 30, 1998. The original of the same is handed up for perusal in Court. The same is returned to learned counsel for the petitioner after perusal.
It is submitted that subsequently the concerned Municipality informed that the physical records of the concerned register of the Municipality are mutilated. However, it was 2 further added that the petitioner's date of birth, as appearing from the computer database of the Municipality, was July 30, 1998.
It is submitted that since the birth certificate was issued by the Municipality itself, the same carries a presumption of correctness, more so in the light of Section 114 of the Evidence Act. It is, thus, submitted that the respondent nos. 5 to 7 be directed to carry out the verification of the petitioner for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to ascertain whether the petitioner satisfies the required credentials for participating in the in-service training for the post of Fishery Extension Officer.
Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 to 7 contends that the said respondents need to carry out an enquiry into the authenticity of the birth certificate produced by the petitioner for the purpose of ascertaining whether the same is genuine or not.
Learned counsel for the Municipality submits that the computer database shows that the date of birth as given in the birth certificate does not tally with the former.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also seek to point out that there is 3 scope of doubt as regards the authenticity of the date of birth depicted in the certificate of birth due to the anomaly for the month carried by the said certificate, which might have been interpolated.
Be that as it may, since this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not in a position to enquire into the veracity/authenticity of the birth certificate-in-question, the respondent nos. 5 to 7 are directed to hold an enquiry into the question as to whether the birth certificate of the petitioner issued by the Contai Municipality is authentic and genuine.
Such report shall be filed by the State- respondents on the next date of hearing, that is, September 16, 2022 before the regular Bench, subject to convenience of the said Bench.
For the purpose of implementing the above direction, it will be deemed provisionally that the birth certificate produced by the petitioner is authentic subject, however, to the result of the writ petition.
Advance copies of the report prepared by the respondent nos. 5 to 7 shall be circulated among the other respondents and the petitioner through their learned Advocates. 4
Exception, if any, to the said report shall be filed by the petitioner and/or the other respondents, that is, the respondent nos. 1 to 4, on the next returnable date.
It is reiterated that the permission to the petitioner to participate, subject to other qualifications having been satisfied, in the in- service training will entirely be subject to the result of the writ petition and the adjudication of this Court on the report to be filed by the respondent nos. 5 to 7.
The parties shall act on the written communication of the learned advocates for the parties, accompanied by a server copy of this order, without insisting upon prior production of a certified copy thereof for implementation of the same.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)