HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27732 OF 2009 ORDER: Petitioner joined the service of the Singareni Collieries in March 1979. His age was mentioned in the service records as 27 years as on the date of his joining in the service. However, in the Coal Mines Provident Fund records, his date of birth was mentioned as 18-08- 1954. According to the petitioner, the age was mentioned in the service records, on a rough estimate and it does not reflect the correct facts. The petitioner filed a representation for correction of the date of birth. The application was rejected on 10-10-1993. Thereafter, he approached the Area Age Determination Committee (for short ‘the Committee’) with an application and supporting material. The Committee rejected the case of the petitioner through order dated 09- 07-2009. Petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. 2. Respondents filed counter affidavit, stating that constantly in the records maintained by the Company, the date of birth was mentioned as 08-03-1952, and since there was no serious discrepancy, the request of the petitioner was rejected. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned counsel for the respondents. 4. It is, no doubt true that the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 27 years, when he joined the service. This, obviously, was on the basis of an examination made by the Medical Officer. The date of birth in the Coal Mines Provident Fund Records is, however, different. The request made by the petitioner, for alteration of the date of birth, was rejected in the year 1993. 5. The Company issued circular, dated 01-08-1988, providing for constitution of Area Age Determination Committee and prescribing the procedure to be followed, whenever any discrepancy as to the date of birth of the employee is noticed. The application submitted by the petitioner was considered by the Committee and through proceedings, dated 25-06-2009, the Committee rejected the case of the petitioner. 6. The Committee comprises of the Additional Chief Medical Officer of the Area Hospital, Additional General Manager of the concerned area and the General Manager of the Area of Mines. Not only the records pertaining to the petitioner as well as the documents submitted by him were verified, but also the petitioner was subjected to the medical examination. In the proceedings dated 25-06-2009, it was mentioned that the case of the petitioner was decided in accordance with the medical jurisprudence. Ultimately, it was observed that the Committee confirmed his age as 08-03-1952. This only reflects the type of medical jurisprudence, followed or adopted by the Committee. It is just un-understandable as to how the age could have been mentioned with reference to date and not the years. 7. Petitioner states that none of the documents relied upon him, were considered nor he was subjected to any medical examination worth its name. Since the career of the petitioner is involved, the Committee is required to undertake a more objective exercise. 8. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The Area Age Determination Committee is directed to examine the case of the petitioner once again, with the relevant records as well as his physical and other relevant features, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, any serious discrepancy is noticed, they shall refer the matter to the Apex Medical Board. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J December 15, 2010. KTL