1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6th May, 2004 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P(S) No. 2911 of 2002, dismissing the writ application on the ground that no case had been made out for interference by the Court.

2. As will appear from the materials on record, the petitioner/appellant was appointed as an Assistant Store Keeper in Bararee Colliery No. 10, Area Lodana on 1st May, 1972 and at the time of his appointment, his date of birth as per matriculation certificate was shown as 7.5.1954. Inasmuch as, there was certain irregularities with regard to the recording of his dated of birth in the records the matter was referred to the Deputy Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna who by his letter dated 3rd January, 1992 verified that the date of birth of the writ petitioner/ appellant was 7th May, 1954, as had been shown in his matriculation certificate. Pursuant thereto, a settlement was arrived at between the Management and the concerned Union and it was agreed by way of settlement that the age of the writ petitioner/ appellant would be corrected after verification report, received from the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna within one year from the date of settlement. Thereafter, the matter was once again referred to the said Board which vide its letter dated 17th September, 1996 re-affirmed its earlier stand regarding the date of birth of the petitioner/ appellant and despite the above and despite Implementation Instruction No. 76 regarding the procedure for determination/ verification of the age of employees the respondents issued to the writ petitioner, a notice of retirement dated 28th March, 2000, on the basis of a medical examination to which the petitioner/appellant was subjected.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner/appellant had raised a further dispute regarding his date of birth and had requested the authorities to correct his date of birth in terms of his matriculation certificate, but he was instead made to undergo a medical test in which his age was assessed as 55 years on 27th June, 2000. As will appear from a subsequent officer order dated 28th July, 2000 issued by Bharat Coking Coal Limited, the petitioners date of birth was corrected to be 55 years as on 27th June, 2000, which automatically rendered the notice of retirement dated 28th March, 2000 redundant. It is obvious that even in terms of the petitioners medical examination and subsequent correction of the date of birth, the writ petitioner/appellant could not have attained the age of 60 years as on 31st March, 2000.

4. Be that as it may, it appears that the writ petitioner/appellant was allowed to continue in service since even according to the medical report, the writ petitioner/appellant would attain the age of 60 years only in the month of July, 2005. However, the writ petition, which was filed in 2002 was in respect of notice issued to him on 28th March, 2000.

5. In the unusual facts of this case, the cause of action for the writ petitioner appears to have altered to some extent, having regard to the fact that the notice impugned in the writ petition was no longer relevant in view of the medical examination of the writ petitioner/appellant. The same has now assumed significance, having regard to the agreement, which had earlier been arrived at between the Management and the writ petitioner/appellant by way of a settlement dated 28th August, 1994.

6. There is no dispute that after the said settlement, the matriculation certificate of the writ petitioner/appellant was once again verified from the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, which repeated its earlier stand that the date of birth of the writ petitioner/appellant was 7th May, 1954. There is also no dispute that under Implementation Instruction No. 76, which is followed by the respondents age determination is to be done at the time of appointment firstly on the basis of matriculation certificate, if available. In fact, the said Instruction indicates tha