JUDGMENT : I.P. Mukerji, J. This case relates to an age dispute of a Group-D employee of the Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya. 2. According to the employer the date of birth should be 1st July, 1957 and that she stood superannuated after 30th June, 2017. According to the writ petitioner her date of birth is 1st April, 1965. 3. By an interim order passed by this Court on an application made by the petitioner (CAN 1848 of 2017) on 23rd June, 2017 the writ petitioner is still continuing in service subject to the result of this writ. 4. The University appointed the writ petitioner on compassionate grounds on 20th May, 2000 on a temporary basis. At the time of entry into service she submitted the following documents to the University as proof of her age: (i) Birth certificate issued by the Pradhan, declaring her date of birth as 1st April, 1965. (ii) School leaving certificate described as transfer certificate dated 2nd January, 1987 issued by the Headmaster of the Madral Junior High School bearing her date of birth as 1st April, 1965 certifying that she had completed the school course (iii) Death cum relative certificate issued by the Municipality. 5. In Rule 18 framed under the Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, 1978 it was provided as under:- "An employee shall make a declaration of age to the appointing authority at the time of his first entry into service based on his Matriculation/School Final or Higher Secondary Certificate and, in the case of persons without the above mentioned academic qualifications, such other documentary proof as may be acceptable to the Vice-Chancellor upon which the age will be admitted. In the absence of any such documentary proof, the age of the person shall be decided by a Committee to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. No revision of such age admitted by the competent authority shall be allowed to be made a later date." 6. It does seem to me that the University had accepted these documents as proof of the petitioner's age inasmuch as in the pension papers prepared by them her date of birth was recorded as 1st April, 1965. The identity card issued by the University mentioned her date of birth as 1st April, 1965. 7. It does seem to me that the University had accepted these documents as proof of the petitioner's age inasmuch as in the pension papers prepared by them her date of birth was recorded as 1st April, 1965. The identity card issued by the University mentioned her date of birth as 1st April, 1965. 7. The assertion in paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition that because of the discrepancy in the two affidavits filed by the writ petitioner she was sent to the Committee for age verification is not correct because the two affidavits were affirmed on 29th August, 2000 and 25th June, 2003. On 29th August, 2000 the petitioner stated that her age was 36 years which was in consonance with the records of the University. There was no discrepancy. The medical test by the Committee was carried out on 15th September, 2000 after the first affidavit but before the second affidavit which was affirmed on 25th June 2003. In the second affidavit the petitioner declared her date of birth as 1957. In any event a statement of the age of the petitioner in these affidavits is irrelevant because the affidavits were not declaration of age but related to other matters. 8. When the documents mentioned in Rule 18 were tendered by the petitioner and accepted by the University by entering the date of birth of the petitioner mentioned in those documents in their records, there was no reason why the University took recourse to refer the petitioner to a Committee. The petitioner only could be referred to a Committee if she could not furnish the documents recording her age proof as mentioned in the first part of the Rule. This Committee expressed the "medical opinion" on 15th September, 2000 that the petitioner was born on 1st July, 1957. On what data or tests this medical opinion was formed is not in the records. 9. In my opinion, this assessment of age by the Committee was totally unnecessary in the facts and circumstances of this case. 10. It is unknown why the petitioner did not take any steps against this medical assessment. Mr. Majumder learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that this was so because she was waiting for confirmation. She was confirmed in 2012. 11. 10. It is unknown why the petitioner did not take any steps against this medical assessment. Mr. Majumder learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that this was so because she was waiting for confirmation. She was confirmed in 2012. 11. On 12th December, 2012 the University wrote to the petitioner that the findings of the committee regarding her age verification were to be taken true and correct and there was no scope to correct the same. The University asked the petitioner to surrender the identity card for issuance of a new one. 12. If the University was doubtful about the declaration of age of the writ petitioner it should have taken proper steps at the proper point of time. Sending the writ petitioner for the age verification committee under Rule 18 was not the proper course. This is so because only when the employee is unable to submit the documents mentioned in paragraph 18 can he be sent to the said Committee for ascertainment of his or her age. In this case it is apparent that on the basis of the birth certificate issued by the Pradhan the school leaving certificate and the death cum relative certification issued by the Municipality the petitioner was appointed as a Laboratory Attendant in Grade-3 with the University, accepting her date of birth as 1st April, 1965. 13. In those circumstances, the respondent University has to treat the petitioner's date of birth as 1st April, 1965. There is no question of the writ petitioner's retirement after 30th June, 2017. The service of the writ petitioner is to continue till she reaches the age of superannuation taking her date of birth as 1st April, 1965. This order is to be implemented by the University. 14. This writ application is accordingly allowed. 15. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis.