JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for grant of compassionate appointment and also for quashing of the letter dated 27.07.2015, by which the claim of petitioner no. 1 (Sukhdeo Oraon) to appoint him on compassionate ground, has been rejected on the ground of over age. 2. The admitted case is that the father of petitioner no. 1 was an employee of the respondent CMPDI, who died on 01.09.2014, leaving behind his widow (petitioner no. 2) and his son (petitioner no. 1). After the death of his father, petitioner no. 1, applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 20.03.2015, but the claim of petitioner no. 1 was ultimately rejected on 27.07.2015 by the Deputy General Manager (P&A), CMPDI, Ranchi on the ground that he has already crossed the age of appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the said order on the ground that the same is absolutely erroneous and submits that it cannot be said that petitioner no. 1 has crossed the age of compassionate appointment. Learned counsel further submits that the date of birth of petitioner no. 1 is 13.05.1983 as per the School Transfer Certificate issued on 04.08.2014 by one Laghu Lal, Bal Siksha Niketan Madhya Vidhyalaya, Sati Mandir Road, Ranchi. He further submits that 13.05.1983 being the correct date of birth, it cannot be said that he has crossed the age of 35 years and the respondents with an oblique motive have rejected the claim of petitioner no. 1 for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel also relied upon the Birth Certificate issued by the State of Jharkhand, whereby it is shown that the date of birth of petitioner no. 1 is 13.05.1983. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-CMPDI opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the several documents, maintained by the company during the life time of the deceased employee, clearly shows that the petitioner no. 1 is more than 35 years and, as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It appears that petitioner no. 1 has been refused compassionate appointment on the ground that he has crossed the maximum age of appointment, which is 35 years. 1 is more than 35 years and, as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It appears that petitioner no. 1 has been refused compassionate appointment on the ground that he has crossed the maximum age of appointment, which is 35 years. As per the provisions of the NCWA, for compassionate appointment, a male dependent should not be more than 35 years of age. This position is not disputed by any parties. The dispute in this case, is as to whether petitioner no. 1 has crossed the age of 35 years or not. From the impugned order, it is clear that the documents, which are maintained by the Company, suggests that petitioner no. 1 has crossed the age of 35 years on the date of making the application for compassionate appointment, i.e. 20.03.2015. For better appreciation, the different ages of petitioner no. 1, which has been recorded in different records, are produced herein below:- S. No. Name of the Documents Age of Sri Sukhdeo Oraon recorded as on Age of Candidate on the date of application dated 20.03.2015 1. Form-A 17 Yrs on 08.01.1990 42 years 02 months 12 days 2. Service Excerpts Form 16 Yrs on 08.01.1990 41 years 02 months 12 days 3. LLTC Bill Form D 22 Yrs on 18.04.1995 41 years 11 months 02 days 4. Form PS3 24 Yrs on 27.04.1998 40 years 10 months 24 days 6. From the aforementioned chart/records, it is quite clear that different age of petitioner no. 1 is shown in different service related records. From the records it is also clear that the age of petitioner no. 1, as per those records, is more than 35 years on the date of application and also he was more than 35 years of age on the date of the death of the employee. 7. Petitioner no. 1 is basing his claim on two documents: (i) the School Transfer Certificate and (ii) Birth Certificate issued by the Government of Jharkhand. The School Transfer Certificate was obtained by the petitioner on 01.04.2014 though the petitioner, as per the said certificate, has left the School in December, 1995. This document does not inspire any confidence. 7. Petitioner no. 1 is basing his claim on two documents: (i) the School Transfer Certificate and (ii) Birth Certificate issued by the Government of Jharkhand. The School Transfer Certificate was obtained by the petitioner on 01.04.2014 though the petitioner, as per the said certificate, has left the School in December, 1995. This document does not inspire any confidence. Further, the Date of Birth certificate issued by the State of Jharkhand also do not inspire any confidence in respect of the date of birth because of the simple reason that the date of birth of petitioner no. 1 was registered on 19.01.2015 though as per petitioner no. 1 he was born on 13.05.1983. Issuance of said Birth certificate is also in violation of the provision of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. Section 13 of the said Act reads as under: “13. Delayed registration of births and deaths:- (1) Any birth of which information is given to the Registrar after the expiry of the period specified therefore, but within thirty days of its occurrence, shall be registered on payment of such late fee as may be prescribed. (2) Any birth or death of which delayed information is given to the Registrar after thirty days but within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only with the written permission of the prescribed authority and on payment of the prescribed fee and the production of an affidavit made before a notary public or any other officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government. (3) Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by Magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee.” 8. In this case, this registration was done after the death of the father of this petitioner no. 1 and only before making an application for compassionate appointment. There is nothing on record to suggest that the provision of Section 13(3) of the said Act was followed while issuing the said certificate. Thus, it can safely be held that this certificate was obtained for the purpose of getting compassionate appointment. There are severe discrepancies in the date of birth of this petitioner no. There is nothing on record to suggest that the provision of Section 13(3) of the said Act was followed while issuing the said certificate. Thus, it can safely be held that this certificate was obtained for the purpose of getting compassionate appointment. There are severe discrepancies in the date of birth of this petitioner no. 1, recorded either in the service related documents of the deceased or the documents submitted by this petitioner no. 1. The entire dispute, in this application, is in respect of determination of the actual date of birth of this petitioner no. 1, which cannot be decided in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The case of the petitioner was rejected on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the service related documents of the father of this petitioner no. 1, which suggests that he has already crossed the age of 35 years, not only on the date of application but also on the date of death of the father of petitioner no. 1. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and, hence, the same is hereby dismissed.