IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17822 of 2008 URMILA DEVI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Binay Kumar, Adv. For the State:- G.P. 19 -------------- 2. 7.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The controversy in this case relates to the issue that if her age has been medically assessed in a broad spectrum band of 45 to 50 years can the authorities be permitted to treat her to be 50 years of age and ask her to superannuate on that basis or should she be given the benefit of the minimum age of 45 years assessed by the Medical Board. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute that the Medical Board assessed the age of the petitioner to be in between 45 to 50 years. Normally a medical assessment of age reflects a difference of a year or two. In the broad spectrum of which the Medical board has assessed the age of the petitioner, it is apparent that it found difficult to decide at which end of the spectrum the petitioner lay. The husband of the petitioner was a Dafadar. The strata of society from which the petitioner comes satisfies this Court that being a lady it was naturally difficult for her to 2 produce direct evidence of her age. If two interpretations of the medical board are possible, one beneficial to the petitioner, that interpretation should be adopted. This Court therefore allows the writ petition with the observation that contrary to the respondents holding her age to be 50 years as assessed in 1999, this Court directs the same to be fixed at the age of 45 years and her date of superannuation to be determined in accordance with law. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)