Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) By filing this Writ petition, the petitioner contended that the order impugned dated 10.10.2002 which has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Contai being Annexure 'P-6' to the Writ petition cannot be sustained. According to him, Annexure 'P-1' is the transfer certificate of the School wherefrom his date of birth will be reflected as 5.10.1947. The order impugned has been passed on the basis of the report of the Medical Board held on 23.8.2002. Two parts of the report of the Medical Board is very important aspect of the matter. One is exact age of a person cannot be ascertained after 40 years on medicolegal point of view. It is depending upon the environmental, nutritional and hormonal factors of an individual. Second is candidate's age at the time of examination was considered as about 58/59 years. Since the exact age cannot be given, even if the approximate value of the report is taken, it will be seemed that as on 23.8.2002, i.e. date of the report the age of the petitioner is 58/59 years. Hence, he has to retire from the service either in August, 2003 or in August, 2004. In such case enquiry reveals to accept the maximum period 59 years of age will be the appropriate age at the time of furnishing the report being dated 23.8.2002. If it is accepted, then August, 2004 will be the appropriate month and year of retirement.
(2.) The petitioner contended that since no particular period can be given by the Medical Board, then the School leaving certificate will be the guiding factor to come to an appropriate conclusion. Such date is 5.10.1947 being Annexure 'R-1' to the Writ petition. I find that the order of retirement was effected on 31.10.2000 which is admittedly prior to the date of actual retirement either on the basis of the report or School certificate. Jurisdiction of the Writ court was invoked in the earlier occasion when the Sub-Divisional Officer, Contai, was directed to come to a conclusion but he rejected the petitioner's contention on the ground that as per the claim his age is having 54* years 10 months and 18 days. But as per the medical report his age was 58/59 years on 23.8.2002. Therefore, his claim is once again rejected in the light of the Medical report.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon two judgments reported in 1989 (1) CLT 76 (HC) (Sadananda Sen v. State of West Bengal and Others ) and 1991 (2) CLT 121 (HC) (Md. Etem Sk. v. State of West Bengal and Others ) and contended that School leaving certificate will be the guiding factor for the purpose of considering the appropriate age.;