ORDER : Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner has preferred this writ petition to quash the letter no.2065 dated 18.07.2013 by which claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected keeping in view that his age differs from matriculation certificate and service excerpt. 2. From the factual matrix of the case, it transpires that father of petitioner was an employee of Central Coal Fields Limited (in short C.C.L.) and was working under the respondents on the post of Dumper Operator, Piparwar Project, Piparwar Area who died in service period. After the death of his father, the petitioner applied on prescribed Form under Clause 9.3.0 of N.C.W.A. It is stated that the father of the petitioner was illiterate person and as such the service sheet (Form G04) was filled up by the Clerk of the office of the respondents. The petitioner is elder son of the deceased employee late Kapildev Singh which appears from the service excerpt and there is no dispute amongst the legal heirs of late Kapildev Singh with regard to claim of compassionate appointment. Vide letter no.4773 dated 21.11.2013 the respondent no.4 asked about the verification of educational certificate of the petitioner so that a decision be taken up for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, vide letter no.2065 dated 18.07.2013 the respondents have rejected the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner that there is variance in age as mentioned in the matriculation certificate and that of service excerpt of the deceased employee. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that matriculation certificate is an authentic and valid document and the same has been duly verified by the respondents through the Bihar School Examination Board from where petitioner had passed matriculation examination. Learned counsel further submits that if the respondents had to take a decision on compassionate appointment on the basis of service excerpt of late Kapildev Singh then what was the occasion to ask for the matriculation certificate and for getting it verified from the Bihar School Examination Board and when after verification it was found to be genuine certificate, the respondents are again relying on the service excerpts regarding the age and not considering the matriculation certificate duly issued and verified by the Bihar School Examination Board. Learned counsel further submits that the service excerpts has been filled-up by the then clerk of the office of the respondents and, therefore, they cannot take the ground for age determination and as such, the petitioner has a good case for consideration. 4. On the other hand counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mrs. Banani Verma, learned counsel for the respondents argues that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief sought for in this writ petition, inasmuch as the same are misconceived and devoid of any substance and hence the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that on perusal of service excerpts, it is apparent that on the back page thereof, the exconcerned employee had given his signature in English which shows that the petitioner's father was not illiterate. He further submits that the age of the family members as given in both certificates are at variance and there is glaring differences of age in respect of the petitioner and it seems that such certificate has been procured and maneuvering. Learned counsel further submits that date of birth of mother of petitioner Tapeshwari Devi as per the Admit Card issued by Bihar Sanskrit Board, Patna is indicated as 02.10.1986 and said Tapeshwari Devi died on 01.04.1986 as per the death certificate provided by the petitioner while applying for an offer of appointment. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that on perusal of certificates provided by the applicant himself creates serious doubt and puts the genuinity of the certificates at stake. Such discrepancies create a doubt over the genuinity of the applicant-petitioner for employment and give a tainted picture of the applicant-petitioner and hence justifying the impugned order. Learned counsel submits that the claim of compassionate appointment by the petitioner has rightly been rejected by these answering respondents and as such the writ petition is devoid of any merit and same is fit to be dismissed. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that when the matter regarding the birth certificate was disputed, it was the respondents-authorities who had asked for the production of the matriculation certificate and on production of the same they had sent it for verification before the Bihar School Examination Board which was found to be genuine. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in catena of decisions that the matriculation certificate is the only conclusive proof of age. The High Court in the case of Kamta Pandey Vs. BCCL in full bench judgment reported in 2007(3) JLJR 733 in para 29 which reads as under: “29.. The date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate duly authenticated by the Education Board is a conclusive proof of age and no other records, including service records as both the parties are governed by Implementation Instruction No.76 of National Coal Wage Agreement-III.” 6. When the respondent-authorities have themselves demanded the matriculation certificate for verification of date of birth and when the same was verified by the Bihar School Examination Board, there was no occasion to turn down the matriculation certificate without any valid reason. There may be several grounds for creating doubts over the genuineness of the date of birth by the respondent-authorities but once when a decision has been taken it should come to a logical end. It is the respondent-authorities who had taken a decision for treating the date of birth genuine only on verification of the matriculation certificate and as such after verification when it was found to be genuine, the said certificate ought to have been considered by the respondent-authorities regarding the date of birth of the petitioner. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules and guidelines, the respondent-authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground taking into consideration the age mentioned in the matriculation certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board and if the petitioner is found fit for appointment, on consideration of the same, the appointment letter should be issued within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed.