WP(C) 902/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Bora, learn ed Standing Counsel, Gauhati Municipal Corporation (hereinafter for short referr ed to as the GMC). Mr. R.K. Adhikary, learned State Counsel appearing for Respo ndent No.3 is also heard. The pleaded case of the petitioner, in short, is that she is a member of the Har izan community of the State and thus belongs to a socially and economically back ward class of citizens. Her father was a sweeper and in that capacity was an e mployee of the respondent-Corporation. After his retirement the petitioner was engaged as a Mazdoor in the sanitation department of the Corporation and her ser vices were confirmed on 01.01.1985 vide order dtd. 20.02.1985 passed by the Comm issioner, Gauhati Municipal Corporation. Because of lack of education and awar eness of the procedural requirements, she at the time of her appointment could n ot furnish any official document in support of her age. She however was made to appear before a Medical Board and to undergo a medical test to ascertain her ap proximate age. The petitioner has stated that on the completion of the said exe rcise, a report was submitted indicating her age, but that document however due to some inadvertence at some level got eventually misplaced and is not available on records. While she was contemplating to continue in service to her great shock and surpri sed she was informed by the letter dated 11.06.2001 on behalf of the Corporation that she would retire on superannuation on 27.07.2001. According to her, she a t that point of time was hardly of 43/44 years of age. Be bewildered by the sud den turn of events, the petitioner, thereafter ran from pillar to post. Though, initially some steps appeared to have been taken, finally she was refused work on and from 22.07.2001. After waiting for a considerable length of time for posi tive responses to her appeals, she turned to this Court for redress. Mr. Dasgupta has urged that as the petitioner had been medically examined and th e report of her age was accepted by the Medical Board of the Corporation, and as the misplacement of the same cannot be construed to be due to any lapse on her part the impugned action is liable to be adjudged, illegal and arbitrary and whi msical. The learned counsel has therefore urged for an appropriate direction to the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner in service in her original capacity and let her continue till her age of superannuation in terms of its prevalent no rms. Mr. Bora, in absence of any affidavit on behalf of the Corporation has contended that delay is an impediment to the grant of relief as sought for by the petitio ner. Mr. Adhikary having regard to the nature of the controversy has abstained f rom offering any comment. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leaded facts, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate in the fact s and circumstances of the case to close the instant proceeding with the followi ng directions: (1) the petitioner would present herself before the Commissioner, Gauhati Munici pal Corporation within six weeks from today with an advance intimation to the af orementioned authority in writing; (2) if the petitioner so appears, the above authority would cause a medical exam ination of her to be undertaken by a Board to be constituted by him or otherwis e in existence in the Corporation. The medical board would ascertain the presen t age of the petitioner and also assess her serving capabilities as a Mazdoor in the sanitation department. (3) if on such medical examination the petitioner is found to be within the sup erannuation age and also fit otherwise for rendering service in the above capaci ty, the Commissioner, GMC would examine the feasibility of providing her with so me employment so as to enable her to eke out a livelihood for her. The above directions have been issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and would not be construed to be a precedent. It is made clear that no direction/observation has been made to the Gauhati Municipal Corporation to pro vide appointment to the petitioner in any particular post on regular basis and i t would be within the discretion of the Commissioner to take an appropriate deci sion in this regard, however bearing in mind the backdrop of facts recited herei nabove. If the arrangement visualized hereinabove materializes, the petitioner would make a fresh beginning and would not claim back wages and other service be nefits on the basis of her past services. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.