Judgment N. Pandey, J. 1. Heard the parties. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of the Director (Security), Bihar State Electricity board, Patna dated 21-6-1996 (Annexure-4), whereby, he has redetermined the age of this petitioner as 55 years as on 23-5-1996. 2. It appears having regard to the controversies about the date of birth of the petitioner, the matter was referred by the authorities to the Medical board. This is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed some time in the year, 1985. At the time of his appointment his date of birth was entered in the Service book as 15-1-1958. According to the petitioner such entry was made on the basis of his date of birth, given in the horoscope. As per the opinion of the first Medical Board petitioner was aged 53 to 55 years on the date of examination. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid determination before this Court in C. W. J. C. No.1554 of 1995. A Bench of this Court did not accept the report of the Medical Board and directed the respondent authorities to get the age of the petitioner redetermined by a Medical Board on the basis of ossification test and other medical/radiological test etc. 3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the matter was referred to a fresh medical board, which assessed petitioners age between 50 to 55 years on 23-5-1996. Accordingly, Director (Security) redetermined the age of the petitioner as 55 years on 23-5-1996. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned director has completely over-looked the date of birth mentioned in the horoscope, which was the sole basis for entry in the service book. He next contended that in any view of the matter when the Medical Board had assessed the age of the petitioner between 50 to 55 years on 23-5-19% there could no justification by the Director (Security)to redetermine the age as 55 years on that date. He contended that the Medical Board itself was not sure whether petitioners age on the relevant date was 50 years or 55 years. Therefore, in such doubtful cases, the benefit should always go to the weaker side or who is going to suffer. He contended that the Medical Board itself was not sure whether petitioners age on the relevant date was 50 years or 55 years. Therefore, in such doubtful cases, the benefit should always go to the weaker side or who is going to suffer. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ahmad Husain V/s. The managing Director, U. P. State Road transport Corporation, Lucknow and ors. [1991 Lab. I. C.2078]. 5. Yet another reference was also made to a decision of Rajasthan High court in the case of Srinath Raj V/s. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and ors. , 1988 (6) S. L. R.758. In that case as per the medical jurists age was assessed between 40 to 50 years. Petitioners affidavit was that he was 40 years old. It was held when the medical board had assessed the age between 40 to 50 years, it was not proper for the respondents to treat the upper limit in order to redetermine the date of birth. 6. Accordingly, having regard to the facts, noticed above, I am also inclined to hold that the benefit of such uncertainty must go to the petitioner. Therefore, respondent Director (Security)is directed to treat the petitioners age 50 years instead of 55 years as on 23-5-1996. 7. In the result, this application is allowed and that part of the impugned order, whereby, petitioners age was determined as 55 years on 23-5-1996 is set aside. Application Allowed.