BIKAS KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions, petitioners have challenge the order of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal which has refused to grant relief to the Petitioners to correct their respective dates of birth which are recorded in the District Home Guard Master Roll. The learned Government Advocate, Mr. Mukherjee, who appears for the Respondents-State of West Bengal in W.P.S.T. No. 622 of 2010 and all the other Government Advocates contend that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the grievances of the Petitioners. According to them, since the posts held by the Petitioners are not civil posts, they are not entitled to approach the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal for any relief. They submit that though the State had not raised the issue of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the applications filed, the Tribunal ought to have considered the issue first before embarking on the decision on merits. The learned advocates submit that since the issue raised by them is a question of law it can be raised at any point of time and indeed before this Court as well for the first time.

(2.) There is no dispute that all the Petitioners were appointed as members of the Home Guard (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as Home Guards). The Petitioners have been appointed as Home Guards on various dates. They have the requisite qualifications and have been working as Home Guards since their respective dates of appointment. The Petitioners learnt that their dates of birth were wrongly recorded in the District Home Guard Master Roll and, therefore, applied for rectification of their respective dates of birth. They were informed by the Director General & Commandant General, Home Guard that their applications for rectification were pending with the Government. The Petitioners then submitted a representation to the State Government. They were informed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Civil Defence that the change of their respective dates of birth was not permissible.

(3.) Aggrieved by this decision, the Petitioners approached the Administrative Tribunal. The State Government raised various issues before the Administrative Tribunal with respect to the merits of the Petitioners' case. However, they did not raise the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal to entertain the applications filed by the Home Guards.