JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- "1. That this is an application for issuance of writ for quashing the letter issued by Memo No. 519/07 dated 29.09.2007 passed by Principal, R.D. & D.J. College, Munger, whereby the petitioner has been retired from service with effect from 30.09.2007 as contained in Annexure-5 and hold the date of birth of the petitioner 17.02.49 which has already been mentioned in the record on the basis of Medical Examination by the competent authority, and thereby grant such consequential reliefs as deem fit and proper." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Principal of the college superannuating him forcibly with effect from 30.9.2007 on the ground of his being already completed 44 years of service is unsustainable on account of its being both factually incorrect and legally impermissible, inasmuch as, the number of years of service rendered by an employee of the University can never be made the criteria for his superannuation employee specially when Section 67 of Bihar State University Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') prescribes 62 years as the age of superannuation of an university employee without there being any reference to number of years of service rendered by such an employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner, even otherwise, had not completed 44 years of service as on 29.9.2007, inasmuch as, he was initially engaged on daily wages only on 5.2.1968 in the Jakir Hussain Hostel of R.D. & D.J. College, Munger and, therefore, 44 years of his service could be completed only on 5.2.2012. In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioner has proceeded to submit that by the impugned order, the petitioner’s service of nearly five years has been robbed off. Reliance in this regard has been placed by him on the judgment of this Court in the case of Nathun Choudhary Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2001(2)PLJR 336 as also in the case of Awadh Narain Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2002(1)PLJR 567 and in the case of Ram Chela Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Bailey Road, Patna & Ors. reported in 2006(1)PLJR 65. 4. Mr. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2001(2)PLJR 336 as also in the case of Awadh Narain Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2002(1)PLJR 567 and in the case of Ram Chela Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Bailey Road, Patna & Ors. reported in 2006(1)PLJR 65. 4. Mr. A.K. Kesari, learned counsel for the University, on the other hand has submitted that the decision for retirement of a non-gazetted employee of the University had been taken in terms of the State Government decision dated 12.11.1999 only after it was confirmed from the acquaintance roll of R.D. & D.J. College, Munger that the petitioner’s initial engagement as a Darban in the Jakir Hussain hostel of the R.D. & D.J. College was made at least in July 1961, if not earlier because his monthly remuneration was paid on 4.8.1961. In this regard, he has also referred to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ragiaw Narayan Mishra Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Bihar Rajya Khadi Gramoudyog Board & Ors. reported in 2006(1)PLJR 410 as also an unreported judgment of this Court dated 22.4.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 11890 of 2005 in the case of Ganesh Sinha Vs. The B.R.A. Bihar University & Ors. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, there are three facets to the dispute in hand. The first one as to whether any university employee can be superannuated on completion of 44 years of service is no longer resintegra, inasmuch as, this aspect of the matter in relation to the State Government employee was decided by this Court in the case of Ganesh Sinha (supra) following the ratio of the Full Bench in the case of Ragiaw Narayan Mishra (supra), wherein it was held as follows:- "13. The plain perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision would, undoubtedly, go to suggest that the Government by virtue of an amendment by addition Rule 5 in Appendix-5 in the Bihar Pension Rules which came into effect, on 23.8.1950, long before the petitioners came to be admitted in the service of the Board and it is very clear there from that the qualifying age of the Government servants for consideration of the pensionary benefits came to be raised from 16 years to 18 in the Government service. Otherwise, also, the aforesaid circular of 1998 has a purpose and policy behind it. It is clarificatory. There is no dispute about the fact that the service between the employer and the employees is a matter of contract. Once, a person is validly entered into the service of the Government he is offered the contractual and statutory protection and the initial entry in the service always is the outcome of the contractual relationship. Who would be competent to contract? It has been provided in Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as to who is the competent to contract. Section 11 of the said Act reads herein as under: “Who are competent to contract – Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject.” 14. It is very clear and evident from the said provision that in, so far as, the competence for a valid contract in terms of the age is concerned, one has to attain the age of majority and majority obviously would be according to law. The provision of Section 3 of the Majority Act, 1875, clearly provides as to what is the age of a person domiciled in India. It is in this context, it would be necessary and profitable to refer the provision of Section 3 of the Majority Act, 1875 which is reproduced as hereunder: “3. Age of Majority of persons domiciled in India. – (1) Every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on his completing the age of eighteen years and not before. (2) In computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day and he shall be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day.” 15. It leaves no any manner of doubt that in this country the age of majority of a person, domiciled in India, has been on his attaining the age of eighteen years and not before. Of course, it would be not very material at this stage to consider that in computing the age of a person, the day on which he borns is to be included as a whole day. Of course, it would be not very material at this stage to consider that in computing the age of a person, the day on which he borns is to be included as a whole day. 16. Be that as it may, one thing is certain that admittedly both the petitioners when they entered into the contract with the respondent Board they had not attained the age of majority. Apart from its legal impact and effect, the ramifications and end result of the status of a contract in terms of the service relationship, a person could be said to have entered into a valid service, only, when he has attained the age of majority. So the minimum age prescribed at the entry point in the Government service has been 18 years. The maximum age prescribed for the exit point is 58 years. In other words, the total length of period of Government service in any case for pensionary benefits would not exceed 40 years. It is in this context, the Government Circular mentioned herein above needs to be considered. When there is a clear Rule provision anything contrary to or inconsistent with or incompatible to it, any circular or resolution or order, will not have any legal and valid effect to abridge the right enshrined in the Rule Provision. Even if the said circular of 1998 as relied upon by the petitioners is considered to be beneficial to them then, also, it cannot be read at this juncture with the existing statutory provision incorporated in the Bihar Pension Rules, as well as, the Bihar Service Code. Therefore, from that point of view also the petitioners cannot be allowed to contend that they have right to continue even beyond the age of 58 years though provided in Rule 73 of the Bihar Service Code which prescribes the superannuation age of 58 years. 17. Thirdly, it is settled and established proposition of law and principles of jurisprudence that a person who takes undue advantage by one or other reasons at the entry point in the service cannot be allowed to urge that he be given higher benefit and if it is urged then, clearly, it goes to show that something wrong or irregular has been done, at the entry point, in service. So the settled principle, also, creates a very strong impediment in getting the relief from this Court which is exercising extraordinary, prerogative, equitable and discretionary writ jurisdiction by invocation of the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution of India………” 6. In fact, this Court in the case of University employees also as in the case of Ganesh Sinha (supra) having considered the aforementioned view of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ragiawa Narayan Mishra (supra) to be binding precedent had held as follows:- "This Court, therefore, following the ratio of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Ragiawa Narayan Mishra (supra) must hold that the decision of the University in the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity factual or legal, and as such the impugned order superannuating the petitioner on completing 44 years of his service in College with effect from 18th of August, 2004 cannot be interfered." 7. Additionally, this Court must take into account that when the State Government, in its circular dated 11.11.1999, had specifically addressed to the issue in hand, as with regard to the continuance of the non-gazetted employees of the University beyond their 44 years of service, it had categorically desired the all Registrars of the Universities to superannuate any university servant on completion of 44 years of service. The aforesaid Government decision dated 12.11.1999 reads as follows:- ^^i=kad&15@,e-1&014@99 ¼va'k&1½ 1961 fcgkj ljdkj] mPp f'k{kk foHkkxA izs"kd] Jh fot; izdk'k] ljdkj ds lfpoA lsok esa] dqyifr] jkT; ds lHkh fo'ofo|ky;A iVuk] fnukad 12 uoEcj1999 fo"k;%& fo'ofo|ky;@vaxhHkwr egkfon~;ky;kas esa f'k{kdsRrj deZpkjh dh fu;qfDr esa U;wure ,oa vf/kdre vk;q lhek ds fu/kkZj.k ds laca/k esaA egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k; ds izlax esa funs'kkuqlkj dguk gS fd jkT; ljdkj tks fo'ofon~;ky;ksa ds osru fu/kkZj.k ds dze esa ;g tkudkjh feyh gS fd fo'ofon~;ky;ksa ess 44 o"kksZa ls vf/kd vof/k ls f'k{kdsRrj deZpkjh lsok esa cus gq, gSaA bl laca/k esa tkWpksijkUr ;g Li"V gqvk gS fd fo'ofon~;ky; ds vf/kfu;e ,oa ifjfu;e esa f'k{kdsRrj deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDr esa izos'k gsrq mez dh U;wure lhek fu/kkZfjr ugha dh x;h gSA bl izko/kku dk vuqfpr <ax ls ykHk mBkdj 1 o"kZ rd ds O;fDr Hkh fo'ofo|ky; lsok esa fu;ksftr crk;s tk jgs gSA 2- vr% jkT; ljdkj us bl fcUnq ij HkfyHkkafr fopkj djrs gq, fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd%& ¼1½ ljdkjh deZpkfj;ksa dh gh Hkkafr fo'ofo|ky;@vaxhHkwr egkfon~;ky;ksa esa f'k{kdsRrj deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDr gsrq U;wure vk;q 18 o"kZ rFkk vf/kdre vk;q lkekU; Js.kh ds fy, 35 o"kZ] fiNM+k@vR;Ur fiNM+k ds fy, 37 o"kZ] efgyk ¼vukjf{kr] fiNM+k ,oa vR;Ur fiNM+k½ ds fy, 40 o"kZ j[kh tk;sA rnuqlkj fo'ofo|ky; ds ifjfu;e esa la'kks/ku dj fn;k tk;sA ¼2½ pwWfd 44 o"kZ gh lkekU;r;k vf/kdre lsokof/k vuqekU; gksuh pkfg,] vr% ftu f'k{kdsRrj us 44 o"kZ dh lsok iwjh dj yh gS] mUga fcgkj jkT; fo'ofon~;ky; vf/kfu;e 1976 dh /kkjk&67&lh¼11½ ,oa iVuk fo'ofon~;ky; vf/kfu;e 1976 dh /kkjk&64&lh¼11½ ds v/khu fo'ofon~;ky; tufgr esa 3 ekg dh iwoZ lwpuk ¼uksfVl½ nsdj lsokfuo`Rr dh dkjZokbZ djsaA 3- d`I;k dh x;h dkjZokbZ dh lwpuk 15 fnuksa ds vUnj ljdkj dks Hkstus dh O;oLFkk djsaA 4- bls vR;ko';d le>sA** 8. It has also to be kept in mind that when Section 67 of the Bihar State University Act prescribes the date of retirement of non-gazetted employees to be an age of 62 years, it also contains a provision for retiring such university employees in the public interest upon completion of 32 years of qualifying service or 52 years of age and to that extent, Section 67 of the Bihar State University Act as substituted by Act 4 of 2006 is quoted hereinbelow:- "67. Retirement from service - (a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any Act, Rules, Statutes, Regulation or Ordinance, the date of retirement of a teaching employee of the University or of a College shall be the date on which he attains the age of sixty two years. The date of retirement of a teaching employee will be the same which would be decided by the University Grant Commission in future. The date of retirement of non-teaching employee (other than the interior servants) shall be the date on which he attains the age of sixty two years. Provided that the University shall, in no case, extend the period of service of any of the teaching or non-teaching employee after he attains the age of sixty two years as the case may be. Provided further also that re-appointment of teachers after retirement may be made in appropriate cases up to the age of sixty five years in the manner laid down in the statutes made in this behalf in accordance with the guidelines of the University Grants Commission." (b) The University may require any teaching or non-teaching employees, who, reckoned from the date of his first appointment, has completed the qualifying service of 23 years or a total service of 27 years, to retire from the University service, if it considers that his conduct or efficiency is such as does not justify his continuation in the service. (c) (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sub-section, any teaching or non-teaching employee may, after giving at least three months prior notice in writing to the concerned appointing authority, retire from such date on which such a teaching or non-teaching employee has completed 32 years of qualifying service or attains 52 years of age, or from such date thereafter as may be specified in the notice. Provided that no employee of the University under orders of suspension shall retire except without a specific approval of the Syndicate. (ii) The University may, in the public interest, require any teaching or non-teaching employee, after giving at least three months prior notice in writing or after paying an amount equivalent to pay and allowance of three months in lieu of such notice, to retire from such date on which he completes 32 years of qualifying service or attains 52 years of age, or from such date thereafter as may be specified in the notice. (d) The provisions contained in the preceding sub-sections shall mutatis mutandis apply to the teaching and non-teaching employees of affiliated Colleges." 9. It thus becomes clear that the retirement of a university employee can be effected even if he has not completed 62 years of age but has completed 32 years of qualifying service or attained 52 years of age. Such retirement after completion of 32 years of qualifying service or 52 years of age has to be however made in public interest and after giving three months notice. In this backdrop, if the Government circular dated 12.11.1999, which was issued by the State Government before the amendment carried out by Act 4 of 2006 in Section 67, is taken into account, it becomes clear that the intention of the State Government was to stop sharing of the financial liability of all such non-gazetted university employees who had already completed 44 years of service and thus were deemed to have attained 62 years of age, which was the prescribed age of retirement. It has to be kept in mind that a person completing 44 years of service in university and even not attaining the age of 62 years will therefore be a person whose appointment must have been made as a minor and it is this aspect of the matter which has been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajiaw Narayan Mishra (supra) holding that appointment of a minor in the government service or university service is wholly impermissible. Thus, this Court does not find any flaw in the decision taken for superannuating a university employee upon completion of 44 years of service. 10. As with regard to the second aspect relating to the claim of the petitioner of his date of birth being 1.1.1949, it has to be kept in mind that there is no such certificate of age of the petitioner much less a matriculation certificate or school leaving certificate or even municipal birth register certificate as prescribed in Rule 96 of the Bihar Finance Rules, which reads as follows:- "96. Every person newly appointed to a service or post under Government should at the time of the appointment declare the date of his birth by the Christian era with as far as possible confirmatory documentary evidence such as a matriculation certificate, municipal birth certificate and so on. Every person newly appointed to a service or post under Government should at the time of the appointment declare the date of his birth by the Christian era with as far as possible confirmatory documentary evidence such as a matriculation certificate, municipal birth certificate and so on. If the exact date is not known, an approximate date may be given. The actual date or the assumed date determined under rule 97 should be recorded in the history of service, service book, or any other record that may be kept in respect of the Government servant's service under Government and once recorded, it cannot be altered, except in the case of a clerical error without the orders of the State Government." 11. The basis of the date of birth of 1.1.1949 as recorded in a chart prepared on 17.8.1984 by the authorities of the college while sending the details of the employees working in the hostel of the R.D & D.J. College, Munger for their absorption in the university service according to the petitioner is a certificate of the Civil Surgeon, Munger who in his letter dated 17.2.1984 had merely given his opinion that the petitioner was aged about 35 years approximately. Such letter of the Civil Surgeon, Munger 17.2.1984 was sent in response to the letter of the authority of the college dated 16.2.1984 as with regard to determination of age of the petitioner and the Principal of the college on the basis of that letter of Civil Surgeon, Munger had calculated the approximate age of the petitioner while recording his date of birth as 1.1.1949 and recommending for absorption of five of such employees including petitioner in the service of the university vide his letter dated 17.8.1984. In fact it was on the basis of this recommendation that the petitioner’s services were absorbed as an employee of the hostel and in the university service with effect from 1.8.1981 as is also apparent from the chart prepared by the Principal of the college as contained in Annexure-4 dated 22.8.2001. Subsequently, however, the petitioner on the basis of another chart dated 26.9.2001 was shown to be holding the post of Darban with effect from 5.2.1968 and as such, he claims that he could have completed 44 years only on 5.2.2012. Subsequently, however, the petitioner on the basis of another chart dated 26.9.2001 was shown to be holding the post of Darban with effect from 5.2.1968 and as such, he claims that he could have completed 44 years only on 5.2.2012. There is however no other authentic document to show that the petitioner’s appointment on the post of Darban in the hostel of the college, which at that point of time was not even part of the university service, was made on 5.2.1968. 12. In this regard, the stand taken by the respondent in their counter affidavit annexing the acquaintance roll as Annexure-A showing the petitioner to have withdrawn his salary as an employee of the hostel with effect from 4.8.1961 has to be taken into consideration. This Court in order to be sure on this aspect in its order dated 6.1.2012 had asked the learned counsel for the University to produce the entire acquaintance roll of payment of monthly remuneration to the petitioner and others and the petitioner to be also personally present in court to explain his signature and/or thumb impression on such Acquaintance Rolls. In compliance of the order of this Court, learned counsel for the University had produced the letter no. B/1413 dated 20/21-01-2012 of the Registrar of the University containing acquaintance roll relating to the petitioner for the period August, 1961 to July, 2007 running into 327 pages, which have been kept on record of this case. The petitioner who had also appeared in person on being shown the aforesaid pages of acquaintance roll, could not deny his signature/thumb impression and thus there would be no difficulty in holding that the date of engagement of the petitioner was at least 1.7.1961 inasmuch as on 4.8.1961, he had received the amount of Rs. 33=50 paise as monthly remuneration for the month of July 1961 and had also kept on receiving such monthly wages even thereafter. Thus if the said document can be made only the safe basis, he, even as per his own Civil Surgeon's certificate dated 17.8.1984 and the letter of the Principal calculating his age 1.1.1949, would be around only twelve years and consequently much less than eighteen years as on 1.7.1961. Thus if the said document can be made only the safe basis, he, even as per his own Civil Surgeon's certificate dated 17.8.1984 and the letter of the Principal calculating his age 1.1.1949, would be around only twelve years and consequently much less than eighteen years as on 1.7.1961. It is thus very difficult for this Court to accept the petitioner's date of birth as 1.1.1949 which as noted above is based on a mere ipse dixit and is not supported by any authentic document. 13. The University, however, has enclosed the order dated 20.8.2005 to show that absorption of the petitioner in the university service has been made only with effect from 31.1.2003 on the post of Ward Servant cum Darban in the Hostel of R.D. & D. J. College, Munger. It was in fact in such a situation that this Court had called for the original document to show that the petitioner had been paid his salary as a Darban of the hostel from the month of August 1961 and in compliance thereof Mr. Keshri, learned counsel for the University, as noted above, had produced the documents containing the copies of the acquaintance role of the employees of the Hostel of the R.D. & D.J. College, Munger showing the payment of salary to the petitioner from the month of August 1961 to July, 2007. Thus, on the basis of the records produced by the respondents as also part thereof annexed in the counter affidavit, there does not remain any iota of doubt that the petitioner had been continuing as an employee of the hostel in the college from July, 1961 as a result whereof he had drawn his salary of the month of July, 1961 in the month of August, 1961 and thus counting 44 years service from July, 1961, the petitioner had completed such a period of 44 years in July 2005 whereas the decision to superannuate him from service has been taken only on 29.9.2007 retiring him on 30.9.2007. 14. 14. Thus, the second aspect as to whether the petitioner had served the college for a period of 44 years prior to the impugned order is beyond any pale of doubt, inasmuch as, those acquaintance roll having been produced in the Court by the learned counsel for the University has also been perused by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner himself and they could not raise any doubt with regard to the thumb impressions of the petitioner month after month in such acquaintance roll beginning from August, 1961. 15. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of Nathun Choudhary (supra) is misplaced because that was the case of an employee of Municipality where service conditions were defined and the period of daily wages was not to be taken into consideration for computation of 40 years of service. Such is not the case in hand, inasmuch as, the petitioner was employed in a hostel of a constituent college and if his date of birth of 1.1.1949 is believed that would make him around 12 years of age when he had received his first salary in the month of August, 1961. Moreover, Nathun Choudhary was regularized in Municipality in the year 1960 and keeping such facts into account as also there being school leaving certificate in the name of Nathun Choudhary, this Court had given benefit of continuation of service till 1996 instead of July, 1993. There is however no such school leaving certificate in the case of the petitioner by which he can be given him such benefit. 16. Yet again, in the case of Awadh Narain Singh (supra), the Division Bench of this Court had found the change of date of birth to be improper after its acceptance and acted upon for a long period of time. In the present case, the retirement of the petitioner is not being enforced on the basis of his date of birth rather his length of service of 44 years has been taken into consideration for his superannuation. In the present case, the retirement of the petitioner is not being enforced on the basis of his date of birth rather his length of service of 44 years has been taken into consideration for his superannuation. As with regard to the judgment of Ram Chela (supra) referred to and relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court must hold that there was a report of fixation of age by a medical board assessing the age between 54 to 56 years and this Court had said that the average age could not have been taken into account rather the minimum age fixed in the medical board report should have been acted upon. In the present case, there is no report of the medical board, inasmuch as, the Civil Surgeon’s approximation of the age of petitioner as 35 years on 19.2.1984 is not based on any scientific test or report. 17. The third and the last aspect would relate to procedural infirmity in passing the impugned order. As noted above, even the Government circular dated 12.11.1999 had required that the person concerned having completed 44 years of age had to be given three months notice prior to his retirement. Admittedly no such notice was given to the petitioner and, therefore, the decision taken by the Principal of the college without any notice and/or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner becomes bad. It is well settled that if a manner is prescribed for taking an action, that has to be followed in letter and spirit. Thus, the impugned order dated 29.9.2007 cannot be sustained on the ground of the petitioner being not given three months notice or salary in lieu thereof as prescribed in the State Government Circular dated 12.11.1999 and is accordingly quashed. 18. The next question would be to what relief the petitioner would be entitled? As noted above, there is no authentic document to prove the age of the petitioner. His determination of age by the Civil Surgeon, Munger in his letter dated 17.2.1984 is also based on scientific test much less ossification and other radiological tests. 18. The next question would be to what relief the petitioner would be entitled? As noted above, there is no authentic document to prove the age of the petitioner. His determination of age by the Civil Surgeon, Munger in his letter dated 17.2.1984 is also based on scientific test much less ossification and other radiological tests. It is thus necessary for this Court to refer the petitioner to a duly constituted medical board in the PMCH for determination of his age because in the event, it is found that the petitioner in the July 1961 was still a minor, he having got the advantage of getting employed and getting salary on the basis of his own declaration to be a major cannot take advantage at the time of his superannuation on the basis of the letter of Civil Surgeon. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Baidyanath Pd. Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1983 LAB. I.C. 162. 19. Today, the petitioner even on the basis of his own averment of his date of birth of being 1.1.1949 has already completed the age of 62 years as on 31.12.2010. Therefore, there would be no question of his reinstatement in service. At the same time, the only issue of payment of salary for the period 30.9.2007 to 31.12.2010 would squarely depend on two facts, namely, as to whether the petitioner had been working as Darban in the college from July, 1961 as shown in the acquaintance roll produced before this Court and as to whether the date of birth of the petitioner of 1.1.1949 fixed by the Principal of the college on the basis of the letter of the Civil Surgeon, Munger dated 17.2.1984 is correct? From reading of the letter of the Civil Surgeon dated 17.2.1984 which was in response to the letter of the college authority dated 16.2.1984, it is absolutely clear that such determination of age of the petitioner was on the basis of the approximation without there being any medical test and particularly the ossification test. 20. From reading of the letter of the Civil Surgeon dated 17.2.1984 which was in response to the letter of the college authority dated 16.2.1984, it is absolutely clear that such determination of age of the petitioner was on the basis of the approximation without there being any medical test and particularly the ossification test. 20. Thus, this Court for doing complete justice between the parties would direct the petitioner to appear before the Superintendent, Patna Medical College and Hospital within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, who would thereafter on identification of the petitioner by the Principal of R.D. & D.J. College, Munger would get the age of the petitioner determined by constituting a Board of three professors including the professor of Radiology Department, who would determine the age of the petitioner and such report of the Medical Board through the Superintendent, Patna Medical College and Hospital in a sealed cover will be handed over to the Principal of R.D. & D.J. College, Munger for its being placed before the Vice Chancellor of the University who would thereafter take an appropriate final decision as with regard to the date of retirement of the petitioner keeping in view the provision of the Circular of the State Government dated 12.11.1999 and the statutory provision made under Section 67 (c)(ii) of the Bihar State University Act. The question of consequential benefit as a result of quashing of the impugned order would therefore abide by the decision taken by the Vice Chancellor of the University based on the report of the Medical Board. 21. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this writ application is disposed of.