JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the report of Apex Medical Board dated 08.11.2006 so far as it relates to the petitioner and also for quashing the office order no. 1240 dated 29.12.2006/04.01.2007, so far as the same determines the age of the petitioner as 57 years and 6 months on 08.11.2006 and also to direct the respondent to treat the date of birth of the petitioner as 07.02.1954. 3. The brief facts of this case of the petitioner made out in this writ application are that the petitioner joined the service with Respondent Corporation as clerk on 07.09.1973. In the year 1995, he appeared in the matriculation examination and the date of birth mentioned in matriculation certificate is 07.02.1954. Vide letter dated 5/6.07.2006, copy of which is the annexure 3, the petitioner was informed that he would retire on 31.01.2007 on completing the age of 60 years. The petitioner protested. On protest of the petitioner, the respondent authority decided to get his age assessed by the competent authority. It is also the case of the petitioner that his date of birth has been mentioned as 07.02.1954 in the Form B and declaration of CMPF. The petitioner appeared before the Apex Medical Board constituted in terms of Implementation Instruction 1976 as per the Instruction No. 76, National Coal Wage Agreement- III and his age was assessed to be in the range of 55 to 60 years as on 08.11.2006. So the respondents accepted the age of the petitioner to be of 57 years and 6 months on 08.11.2006 and the petitioner was made to retire from his service on 31.05.2009. 4. The petitioner made representation before the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, BCCL, Basta Colla area, but the respondent did not pay any heed to the same. 5. Per contra, in their counter affidavit, respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 have averred that since original form ‘B’ of Kuya colliery was missing and therefore, there was no record in the original form of the colliery but in the Non –Executive Information System (NEIS) maintained at Koyla Bhawan, the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 06.01.1947. 2, 3 and 4 have averred that since original form ‘B’ of Kuya colliery was missing and therefore, there was no record in the original form of the colliery but in the Non –Executive Information System (NEIS) maintained at Koyla Bhawan, the date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 06.01.1947. Since there was discrepancy in the date of birth of the petitioner, the case of the petitioner was referred to the Date of Birth Committee. The Committee examined the case of the petitioner and recommended that the age of the petitioner be assessed by the Apex Medical Board. 6. It is admitted case of both the petitioner and the respondents that the Instruction No. 76, National Coal Wage Agreement- III, is applicable to the respondent company as well as the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have discarded the claim of the petitioner arbitrarily and have not considered the date of birth mentioned in the matriculation certificate of the petitioner. It was further submitted that the petitioner was forced to undergo medical test without any reason, hence, he submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the prayers made in this writ application. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that as has been mentioned in Instruction No. 76, National Coal Wage Agreement- III the procedure for determination of age in dispute has been agreed between the management and the union and the same is binding upon the petitioner and the determination of the age was done in terms of the said Instruction No. 76, National Coal Wage Agreement- III. It was further submitted that the determination of age being a disputed question of fact cannot be decided by the writ court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that the determination of age being a disputed question of fact cannot be decided by the writ court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of M/s BCCL vs. Presiding Officer and Another, reported in 1995 (supp.) (2) SCC 598, wherein in the facts and circumstances of the case where the workman raised a dispute challenging his assessment of age by the Apex Medical Board only after his retirement and the Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Apex Medical Board was not adequately equipped with scientific expertise and as such the age of the workman was not correctly determined by the Apex Medical Board and directed the workman to be medically examined by the Civil Surgeon for the purposes of determination of his age afresh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the medical opinion regarding the age of the workman by the Apex Medical Board as no objection was raised before the Tribunal regarding the competence of the doctors constituting the Apex Medical Board and also because in that case the workman whose age was assessed as 58 years retained in service for two years without challenging the opinion of the Apex Medical Board at that stage. It was further submitted that in this case also the age decided by the Medical Officer was duly communicated to the petitioner vide office order dated 29.12.2006/04.01.2007 contained in annexure 6 to the writ application but the petitioner though aware of the age assessed by the Medical Board since then, has not raised any dispute. The petitioner has filed the writ application in the year 2009, after a long delay. It was also submitted that the petitioner being a workman, has alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and this petition without any merit be dismissed. 9. The petitioner has filed the writ application in the year 2009, after a long delay. It was also submitted that the petitioner being a workman, has alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and this petition without any merit be dismissed. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the parties made at the bar, it is found that the petitioner has not disputed that Apex Medical Board was constituted as per the terms of the Instruction No. 76, National Coal Wage Agreement- III, the petitioner without any demur submitted himself for medical examination and having done so, only because the age assessed by the Apex Medical Board was not as per his choice, he cannot challenge the same by invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The competence of the doctors constituting the Apex Medical Board is not questioned in the writ application. In this backdrop this court is of considered view that there is no rhyme or reason for this court to interfere in the impugned office order no. 1240 dated 29.12.2006/04.01.2007, which is issued on assessment of the age of the petitioner by Apex Medical Board, more so, when the petitioner has approached this court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, after more than two years from the issuance of the said order, without any plausible explanation for delay. 10. Thus in view of the discussions made above, this writ application, being without any merit, is dismissed. There shall be no order of costs.