IMPORTANT POINT
The matriculation certificate is deemed conclusive evidence of age in matters of compassionate appointment, and judicial review under Article 226 is limited to correcting errors of law, not re-evaluating factual findings.

JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 08.01.2018 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, in O.A. No. 051/168/2017 has been assailed, whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal, while disposing of the original application, has directed the respondent authorities to consider the age mentioned in the matriculation certificate of the applicant no. 2, son of the deceased employee, who has died in harness, for the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment.

2. The brief facts which led the writ petitioner to file the writ petition as per the pleading made in the writ petition are as under :-

3. It appears from the pleading that the father of the writ petitioner while working as Ex-Oprt-cum-attendant died on 26.02.2017 in an accident while, in harness. The writ petitioner has made an application for appointment on compassionate ground under the scheme to consider the case for such appointment. The aforesaid application was considered and rejected on the ground that the writ petitioner was having more than the age of 35 years, the maximum age barrier as provided for appointment. Such conclusion has been arrived at by taking into consideration the details of the age referred by the deceased employee in the personal appraisal form, wherein the day when the age of the writ petitioner was given, which was of 21 years, on the date such application was filed, he has already crossed the age of 35 years.

4. While on the other hand, the case of the applicant, respondent herein is based upon the age contained in the matriculation certificate as per which, according to the respondent, the age of the applicant no. 2 is below 35 years.

5. The respondent approached the learned Tribunal assailing the aforesaid decision of the writ petitioner by taking the ground that as per the age stipulated in the matriculation certificate which is the only conclusive evidence of age and the same has not been taken into consideration, rather, the age available in the personal data form has been considered and while doing so, the writ petitioner, respondent before the learned Tribunal, has committed gross illegality.

6. The learned Tribunal has appreciated the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. The learned Tribunal has accepted the ground of the applicant, respondent herein and has disposed of the original application with a direction upon the respondent, writ petitioner herein, to take decision on the basis of the age mentioned in the matriculation certificate of the respondent herein, the applicant for getting an appointment on compassionate ground, the said order is under challenge under the power of judicial review as conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261.

7. Mr. Arpan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, Steel Authority of India Limited, has taken the ground that the learned Tribunal has committed gross error in not putting reliance upon the age referred in personal date form, rather has gone into the age mentioned in the matriculation certificate and hence the order impugned suffers from illegality, as such, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

8. While on the other hand, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, applicant in the original application before the learned Tribunal has defended the order passed as impugned on the ground that the matriculation certificate is only the conclusive proof to establish the age said to be authentic.

9. The learned counsel has submitted that instead of considering the age based upon the matriculation certificate, the age mentioned in the personal date form filled by the deceased-father has been considered and the claim of