ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter no. CMPDI/HQ/9.3.0/ NCWA-IX/A-Hamid/15/251 dated 08.01.2015, whereby the petitioner’s application dated 02.12.2013 for compassionate appointment under the provisions of Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA-IX consequent upon the death of his father was rejected on the ground of difference in the age provided in the School Transfer Certificate and the age mentioned in the official documents and on subsequent determination of the petitioner’s age by the Medical Board of Central Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as “CCL”), he was found to be overage on the date of application. A further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider the petitioner’s age as 01.12.1978 as his actual date of birth as mentioned during the admission of the petitioner for the first time in the school. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents on record. 3. The petitioner has claimed his date of birth as 01.12.1978 i.e. the date he first entered the school. In support of the said date of birth, the petitioner has annexed a School Transfer Certificate issued on 04.04.2016 (part of Annexure-4 to the rejoinder affidavit). Another date of birth has been mentioned in the transfer certificate issued by the school on 30.07.2013 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) showing his date of birth as 04.01.1979. The case of the petitioner is that his father died in harness on 26.06.2013 due to an accident occurred at his work place. On 02.12.2013, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under the provisions of 9.3.0 of NCWA-IX, however, the respondent no. 5 Dy. General Manager, (P & A), Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Limited, Ranchi rejected the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment vide impugned order dated 08.01.2015. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner’s father during his service period had filled up different forms declaring the age of the petitioner as under:- 10.5 Name of documents Age Md. Aslam Ansari recorded on Age of candidate on the date of application dated 02.12.2013 1. LTC Bill Form-B 07 yrs. On 06.03.1982 38 yrs. 08 months. 27 days 2. Service Excerpts Form 12 yrs. On 01.04.1987 38 yrs. 08 months. 01 day 3. LTC Bill Form-D 15 yrs. On 20.08.1990 38 yrs. 03 months. 13 days 4. Aslam Ansari recorded on Age of candidate on the date of application dated 02.12.2013 1. LTC Bill Form-B 07 yrs. On 06.03.1982 38 yrs. 08 months. 27 days 2. Service Excerpts Form 12 yrs. On 01.04.1987 38 yrs. 08 months. 01 day 3. LTC Bill Form-D 15 yrs. On 20.08.1990 38 yrs. 03 months. 13 days 4. On the basis of the petitioner’s age declared by his father, the respondent no. 5 while rejecting the petitioner’s claim vide impugned order dated 08.01.2015 observed that since the petitioner is not a matriculate and the difference in his age has been found, the case was referred for age determination to the Medical Board of CCL. The Age Assessment Board of CCL assessed the age of the petitioner between 35 to 40 years as on 12.11.2014. As per the guideline of the Coal India Limited, the mid-point of the said age range was required to be taken if there was no mention of age in different records of the company. Accordingly, taking the mid-point of the said range of age determined by the Medical Board, the petitioner’s age was treated as 37½ years as on 12.11.2014. Thus, the petitioner was found to be above 35 years of age on the date of his application i.e., 02.12.2013, whereby he was considered overage and not fit for compassionate appointment in terms with Clause 9.3.0 of NCWA-IX. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a matriculate and, therefore, School Leaving Certificates annexed by the petitioner along with the writ petition as well as the rejoinder affidavit cannot be taken into consideration for determination of actual age of the petitioner. Moreover, the said two School Leaving Certificates also contain two different dates of birth of the petitioner. 5. In that view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 08.01.2015 passed by the respondent no. 4 rejecting the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment on the ground of his being overage on the date of making application. 6. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.