Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, a skilled Khalasi, Electric Supply Division, Chapra East has joined the services with the respondents on 9.6.1998. His date of birth was shown as 23.8.1991 but somewhere in the year 1996 a doubt arose about his real age. The respondents directed the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board and thereafter the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board of the respondent and the Medical Officer informed the Superintending Engineer of the respondent Board, vide his letter No. 445 dated 3.12.1999 that the petitioners assessed age is between 54-56 years. Accordingly the petitioner was also informed. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said communication dated 3.12.1999 (Annexure-6) came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2636 of 2003. It would clearly appear from the order dated 11.3.2003 passed in said C.W.J.C. that the petitioner raised one single grievance before this Court i.e. the benefit of minimum age ought to have been given to him. This court instead of entering into the merits of the said claim granted liberty to the petitioner to make representation before the said respondent no.2 praying that the benefit of minimum age may be given to him. The petitioner thereafter made a representation but as the same has been rejected vide memo No. 862 dated 27.5.2003 the petitioner has again come to this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued on the question of the competence of the Medical Board and the fact that almost after about 28 years of service the petitioner could not be sent to the Medical Board for age verification. It is submitted by him that if his date of birth is shown to be 23.4.1991 in the service book then the same is final for all practical purposes and nothing is required to be reconsidered. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent Board submitted that from the perusal of the order dated 11.3.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2636 of 2003 it would clearly appear that limited liberty was given to the petitioner and in fact the petitioner was simply praying that he be given the benefit of the minimum age i.e. instead of treating him to be 55 years he may be treated as 54 years. 5. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties l must immediately observe that the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the questions which he was entitled to raise in the earlier writ application but did not do so. The plea that the Board could not refer his case to the Medical Board or after lapse of 28 years the age could not be redetermined are hit by constructive resjudicata. The petitioner otherwise is estopped from raising all such pleas. 6. The only question for consideration now left is that if the Medical Board constituted by the respondent Board assessed petitioners age between 54-56 years then the average age should be taken or the petitioner should be taken as 54 years. 7. ln Annexure-9 the respondent, Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna has observed that the petitioners age would be assessed to be 55 and the benefit of the Judgment of the Supreme Court can not be given to the petitioner. In my considered opinion that part of the order is patently illegal. The Board after observing the Supreme Court judgment has issued certain Circulars as matter of policy wherein it has been observed that in case of the assessed age between maximum and minimum the average should not be taken but the concerned employee should be taken to be of the minimum age. The observations made in Annexure-9 would certainly be illegal because the judgment of the Supreme Court does not say that it would have prospective effect but the Supreme Court has simply clarified the law. Under these circumstances the Board would not be entitled to say that the judgment of the Supreme Court would become effective from the date of the judgment itself. 8. Under these circumstances the petition is partly allowed. It is held that the petitioner would be deemed to be 54 years of age and instead of retiring on 31.8.2004 he would retire on 31.8.2005. The petition is allowed in part.