Judgment 1. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Perversity of facts do not make good precedent. 3. Look at another way the submission as is being made on behalf of the State counsel is absolutely illogical. First the tact is that Hari Narain Jha entered service in 1973 and his ervice book recorded his age as 8.4.1944. He gave the school leaving certificate which incorporated the same date. While he was in service the State respondents were under impression that their employees looks a little bit older than the age given. Then he was subjected to medical examination and thereafter his age was changed on the basis of the assessment as was given by the medical board. 4. The contention on behalf of the State is that incumbent was 60 years in 1989. If the argument is even accepted then the employee was born in 1929. If he was employed in 1973 then he had been employed at the age of 44 years. It is not the case of the respondents that he had been employed wrongly. The State could not employ a person at the age of 44 years. Thus the grievance made on behalf of the petitioner as he brought on the petition cannot be held to be incorrect. 5. There is no error in the order of the learned Judge. 6. Dismissed.