ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The appellant-M/s Central Coalfields Limited is in appeal against the order dated 10.02.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.5420 of 2016 by which the writ Court has issued a direction to reconsider the claim of the respondent no.1-writ-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) for his compassionate appointment. 2. The learned writ Court in paragraph-8 of the impugned order dated 10.02.2017 has held, thus; “8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and also taking into account the views and ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in LPA No. 117 of 2010 which was disposed of on 01.12.2010, I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration on the following grounds:- (i) In the School Leaving Certificate, Aadhaar Card and Pan Card, the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 01.03.1985 and as such, on 09.08.2013, he was below 35 years and eligible for compassionate appointment. (ii) There was no occasion to send the matter before the Screening Committee for determination of age by the Medical Board constituted by the Committee meant for taking decision in the matter of compassionate appointment. The matter regarding age was not disputed, rather, on the certificates and the service excerpts, it is clear that the age of the petitioner was below 35 years as on 09.08.2013. (iii) Even assuming the age of the petitioner to be 37½ years, as determined by the Medical Board, there is every possibility of errors of two years plus/ minus in the determination of age. The age determined by the Medical Board cannot be treated to be a gospel truth. The respondent-authorities in a fashion, which cannot be considered to be full proof, entered into realm of judging the age of the applicant on medical opinion. In my considered opinion, it is not possible to arrive at a conclusion of definite nature when age can be considered by the nature which is required to be established.” 3. The learned writ Court referring to the School Leaving Certificate, PAN Card and Aadhaar Card of the writ-petitioner has issued the following direction: “9. In my considered opinion, it is not possible to arrive at a conclusion of definite nature when age can be considered by the nature which is required to be established.” 3. The learned writ Court referring to the School Leaving Certificate, PAN Card and Aadhaar Card of the writ-petitioner has issued the following direction: “9. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner cannot be denied for appointment on compassionate ground and the respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner as he was 35 years of age at the time of making application, i.e. on 09.08.2013, as per the certificates namely, School Leaving Certificate, Pan Card and Aadhaar Card and offer of appointment can be done to the petitioner in view of the aforesaid facts. The above exercise should be made within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 4. The main plea raised by the appellant is that age-determination is beyond the purview of the powers and jurisdiction of the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Assailing legality of the impugned order dated 10.02.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.5420 of 2016, Miss. Pooja Kumari, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the learned writ Court that there is every possibility of error of two years “plus/minus” in determination of age by the Medical Board and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for re-consideration of his claim for compassionate appointment is patently erroneous. 6. Briefly stated, father of the writ-petitioner was appointed under Rajhara Colliery of the appellant-M/s CCL. In the service excerpts of his father the writ-petitioner has been shown as his son. The employee was found unfit by the Medical Board on 14.06.2013, in consequence thereof a superannuation notice dated 15/16.07.2013 was issued. Father of the writ-petitioner retired from the service w.e.f. 31.07.2013 and an application for compassionate appointment of the writ-petitioner was submitted on 10.08.2013. In support of his age, the writ-petitioner has submitted School Leaving Certificate, PAN Card and Voter’s Identity Card to assert that at the time when the application for his compassionate appointment was submitted he was below 35 years of age. 7. In support of his age, the writ-petitioner has submitted School Leaving Certificate, PAN Card and Voter’s Identity Card to assert that at the time when the application for his compassionate appointment was submitted he was below 35 years of age. 7. At the outset, we intend to record that it is not the date of application on which age of a claimant shall be determined rather, it is the date of death of the employee or the date when he was declared medically unfit and was given a superannuation notice on the ground of medical unfitness which shall be the date on which his eligibility for compassionate appointment has to be examined. A fundamental mistake which has been committed by the learned writ Court is that claim of the writ-petitioner in respect of the aforesaid documents has been examined as on the date of application for compassionate appointment. It is really not the domain of the writ Court exercising powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India to assess the age of an employee or a claimant for compassionate appointment. Primarily, it is for the employer to adopt a method for assessing age of the claimant. Of course, if there is indisputable document such as, Matriculation certificate issued prior to the date of application/appointment [refer, “Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors. Vs. Chhota Birsa Urawn” (2014) 12 SCC 570 ], normally that shall be a conclusive proof of age. The documents produced by the writ-petitioner in support of his claim that he was within the prescribed age at the time of the application were all issued at his own instance; the School Leaving Certificate has been issued only on 15.07.2013. There is no explanation by the writ-petitioner why a School Leaving Certificate was not obtained by him around the year 1998; he is said to have completed Class-V in the year 1997. As on the date when his father was issued a superannuation notice, the appellant, on his own saying, was above the age of 35 years and, thus, had crossed the maximum age for appointment under M/s C.C.L. 8. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is not another mode of recruitment, rather it is in the nature of an exception to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In “Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is not another mode of recruitment, rather it is in the nature of an exception to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In “Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others” (1994) 4 SCC 138 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while emphasising that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of course, has observed, thus; 2.“....The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable land valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” 9. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” 9. Viewed thus, and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, we find serious infirmity in the approach of the learned writ Court. The impugned order dated 10.02.2017 is unsustainable and, accordingly, it is set-aside. 10. In the result, L.P.A. No.344 of 2017 is allowed. LAP allowed.