Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.2.1999, contained in Annexure-5, whereby and whereunder 21.11.1998 has been determined as his date of birth on the basis of the average of his age determined by the Medical Board between 58-60 years, vide report contained in Annexure-6, which has been filed along with the second supplementary counter-affidavit. 2. In short, the relevant facts are that there was some dispute with respect to the age of the petitioner and several others. The General Man-ager-cum-Chief Engineer, Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station, Muzaffarpur (respondent No. 3), vide letter No. 2444 dated 3.9.1998, contained in Annexure-4, directed the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board on 9.10.1998. The petitioner appeared before the Medical Board and the Medical Board, vide its report dated 21.11.1998, contained in Annexure-E to the second supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, determined his age between 58-60 on the said date and on the basis of its average 59 years. 3. It has been submitted by the learned Counselfor the petitioner that the change in the date of birth was wholly arbitrary and violative of the basic Rules of natural justice. According to the learned Counselfor the petitioner, the date of birth was entered in the service book as per the School Leaving Certificate, contained in Annexure-1. As such, it is submitted that the respondent-authority in the Board was not legally justified to constitute the Medical Board and get him examined for determining the fresh date of birth of the petitioner. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Board, it is stated that the petitioner entered into the Boards service as Foreman Grade I on 8.1.1968. His date of birth has been recorded in the service book in different ink and in different handwritings as 4th July, 1944. As such, the respondent-Board constituted a committee to find out the case of interpolation, manipulation, cutting and overwriting in the date of birth of the workmen. His date of birth has been recorded in the service book in different ink and in different handwritings as 4th July, 1944. As such, the respondent-Board constituted a committee to find out the case of interpolation, manipulation, cutting and overwriting in the date of birth of the workmen. The case of the petitioner was also considered by the said committee, which observed that the petitioner should be directed to submit his original Matriculation certificate and after verification, the date of birth mentioned therein should be treated as his date of birth if he came in service after passing of Matriculation examination, otherwise the petitioner should be referred to the Medical Board for determination of his age. And the petitioner was non-matric, the school leaving certificate/transfer certificate is not within the meaning of conclusive proof of age under Clause 4(c) read with Clause 4(d) of the modified Standing Order of the Board. As such, it is submitted by the learned Counselfor the Board that the petitioner was required to appear before the Medical Board which, on examination, has determined his age between 58 to 60 years as on 21.11.1998, vide Annexure-E. Learned Counsel for the Board has further submitted that the petitioner having appeared before the Medical Board without raising any objection or agitating his grievance against the order, contained in Annexure-3, cannot now be permitted to raise such contention with respect to violation of the Rules of natural justice. 5. This Court finds substance in the said submission of the learned Counselfor the Board. As the petitioner without any objection surrendered his right by appearing before the Medical Board, he cannot be allowed to raise such question of violation of the principles of natural justice against the change of date of birth pursuant to the report of the Medical Board. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in view of the principle decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board V/s. Bihar Powers Workers Union reported in 2000 (3) PLJR 65 , that in case of computation of age under such circumstances where the Medical Board has determined the age between 58 to 60 years, the benefit of lesser age shall go to the employee. As such it has been submitted that even on the basis of the report of the Medical Board, the petitioners age on 21.11.1998 shall be 58 years and the Board has committed error in determining his age by taking into account the average of the age determined by the Medical Board. 7. This Court finds substance in the submission of the learned Counselfor the petitioner. In view of the settled principle, learned Counselfor the Board has not been able to defend the impugned action of the respondent-Board in determining the petitioners age on the basis of average of the age found by the Medical Board. 8. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order, contained in Annexure-6, is accordingly quashed and the respondents are directed to treat the age of the petitioner as 58 years on 21.11.1998 and give him all consequential benefits, like reinstatement and continuation in service, pay his wages and fix his retirement benefits accordingly, within two weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order.