1. Heard the parties. After death of the her husband, P.K. Narayan in harness, the respondent No. 1 herein was given compassionate appointment in the year 1977, by the Management of the Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Ranchi. During his service period, her husband on 1.2.1969, in a declaration had given the age of his wife, namely, the respondent No. 1 to be approximately 24 years.

2. Although it appears that the respondent No. 1 was already a graduated at the time of her compassionate appointment, but she failed to produce any document in proof of here date of birth and, therefore, on her oral declaration, in Coloumn-8 of the Personal Data Form (Annexure 4), her age was mentioned as 32 years. The said form was duly signed by her. Subsequently, it appear that on 1.12.1979 she got issued a school leaving certificate from J.K. High School, Begusarai, wherein her date of birth was mentioned as 15.9.1948, whereas according to her age mentioned in Personal Date Form, her date of birth comes to the year 1945. It further appears that on 6.8.1990, the said school leaving certificate as well as the matriculation certificate were produced by her before the A.P.O. (EST/ MOE, HQrs.) of the Corporation, who made endorsement thereon and placed those documents on record.

3. Further on the basis of those papers, the Deputy Manager (Education) of the Corporation made correction in her date of birth and thereby it was changed from 4.5.1945 to 15.9.1948 and, consequently, such correction was made in her Service Book too. Later on, the Senior Manager, P & A H Qrs of the Corporation issued communication dated 19.11.2000 to the effect that the Deputy Manager (E), had no authority to accept her date of birth as 15.9.1948, on the basis of the aforesaid school leaving certificate, some time in the year 1991, without taking approval of the competent authority and, therefore, direction was given to the Medical Division of the Corporation to recall the correction made by the Deputy Manager (Education) and to recorrect her date of birth as 18.7.1945.

4. Aggrieved by the said direction, the respondent No. 1 filed W.P. (S) No. 5821 of 2001 in this Court for quashing the said order and for a direction to accept her date of birth as 15.9.1948.

5. By the impugned order dated 10.4.2003 the learned Single Judge, set aside the communication dated 19.11.2000 and remitted the matter to the Management of the Corporation to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the writ-petitioner. The Management of the Corporation has preferred the present appeal against the said order/ direction of the learned Single Judge.

6. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Single Judge while remitting the matter to the authority concerned observed that if the school leaving certificate was shown in original then the respondent even at that time had the opportunity not to proceed on the basis of said school leaving certificate, by the issuance of Annexure 3 and 3/1, it is evident that they acted all along on the basis of the date of birth as recorded in the school leaving certificate and not on the basis of pre-employment Medical Examination Report.

7. Mr. A Allam, counsel for the respondent No. 1 placed reliance on a decision in Radhe Shyam Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2001 (1) PLJR 451 and submitted that action of the respondents, in acting on the basis of pre- employment Medical Examination Report, which was contrary to the date of birth recorded in the school leaving certificate, was not proper. The A.P.O. H.Qrs. had already verified the original school leaving certificate, and thereafter the authorities cannot, at this stage, be allowed to fall back on the declaration that the respondent No. 1 might have made at the time of initial appointment. Further the pre-employment Medical Examination Report can also be taken as proof of age of the employee concerned.

8. In our opinion, in respect of the proof