WP(C) 4039/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. This matter was taken up on 10.8.2011 and the following order has been p assed :- In Annexure-A(1), the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 15 .03.1980. On the other hand in paragraph-2 of the writ petition, it has been sta ted that the petitioner has been working as Muster Roll worker in the Forest Dep artment at Hailakandi since 1993, meaning thereby that at the time of his engage ment, even if any, in 1993 he was only 13 years of age and thus, he could not ha ve been appointed. In the affidavit filed in support of the statement made in the writ petition, th e petitioner has disclosed his age as 45 years. Thus, there is apparent disparit y in respect of the age of the petitioner. Above apart, although the case of the petitioner is that he has been working as Muster Roll worker since 1993, but not a single document has been annexed to the writ petition in support of his plea. Heard in part. Further hearing upon obtaining the instruction from the learned c ounsel for the petitioner regarding the above disparity Issue notice. The notice is made returnable on 05.09.2011. Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned State counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respon dent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, while Ms. B. Baruah, learned Standing couns el, Finance Department accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Extra c opies of the writ petitions hall be furnished to the respective counsel within 4 8 hours. The petitioner shall furnish necessary instruction for early disposal of the mat ter. Today, Ms S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits tha t there is typographical mistake in mentioning the engagement of the petitioner as Muster Roll Worker. She prays for liberty to file a fresh writ petition upon withdrawal of the instant writ petition. Prayer is allowed with liberty. Writ petition is dismissed.