JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The appellant-M/s Central Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as M/s CCL) has challenged the order dated 10.02.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2683 of 2016 by which a direction has been issued to the appellant-M/s CCL to consider the claim for compassionate appointment of the respondent-writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as respondent). 2. Initial claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment was declined by M/s CCL vide order dated 29.02.2016 on the ground that he has crossed the maximum age for appointment, that is, 35 years. 3. The learned writ Court has interfered with the order dated 29.02.2016 on three grounds; (i) fixation of age of the respondent as 14.10.1980 on the basis of his age assessed by the Apex Medical Board as arbitrary, (ii) date of birth of the claimant cannot be fixed on an imaginary ground, and (iii) age of the respondent whose mother was an illiterate women can differ by 2 to 3 years. 4. The learned Single Judge has held as under: “8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered by the respondent-authorities on the following grounds:- I. The age assessed by the Apex Age Committee was 35 to 40 years and if the minimum age is taken into consideration then date of birth of the petitioner is 14.10.1980 as such he was less than 35 years of age on the date of application i.e. on 02.02.2015. Rejection of the petitioner's application on the ground of doubt in respect of age is illegal and arbitrary and if the Medical Board is doubtful about the exact age, benefit must accrue to the weaker side those person who is going to suffer. Benefit of uncertainty must go to such persons, therefore, it was not proper for the respondents to treat the upper limit in order to re-determine the date of birth. II. The respondent cannot fix the date of birth on an imaginary ground. Any fixation of date of birth without any basis on imaginary ground is arbitrary and as such fixing the date of birth of petitioner as on 14.04.1978 ignoring the minimum age assessed by the Medical Board cannot be termed to be real age of the petitioner. II. The respondent cannot fix the date of birth on an imaginary ground. Any fixation of date of birth without any basis on imaginary ground is arbitrary and as such fixing the date of birth of petitioner as on 14.04.1978 ignoring the minimum age assessed by the Medical Board cannot be termed to be real age of the petitioner. Petitioner's mother late Mejhran Lakra was an illiterate tribal woman and there was every possibility of error of the date of birth differing for 2 to 3 years and as such the benefit of doubt has to be given to the petitioner and not to the respondents. In the case of “Ahmad Hussain vs. The Managing Director, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow & Ors.”, reported in 1991 LAB.I.C.2078 and in the case of “Srinath Raj vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board & ors.”, reported in 1988(6) SLR 758 and same view was taken by this Hon'ble Court also in the case of “Atmanand Singh vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & ors.”, reported in 1997 (2) PLJR regarding the date of birth.” 5. Powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are exercised by the writ Court on well-known principles of exercise of a discretionary jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of the writ Court under Article 226 is extraordinary but discretionary. It is not the function of the writ Court to determine age of an employee/applicant. The writ Court would step in and interfere with the decision of the authority fixing the age of an employee/applicant only when the decision is found arbitrary and illegal. It is for the employer to fix the criteria for appointment and lay down the procedure for selection. The employer may prescribe a procedure/guidelines for fixation of age of an applicant. 6. Clause 9.3.0 of the National Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA) is extracted below: 9.3.0 Provision of Employment to Dependents. 9.3.1 Employment would be provided to one dependent of workers who are disable permanently and also those who died while in service. The provision will be implemented as follows. 9.3.2 Employment to one dependent of the worker who dies while in service. In so far as female dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0. 9.3.3 the dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. The provision will be implemented as follows. 9.3.2 Employment to one dependent of the worker who dies while in service. In so far as female dependants are concerned, their employment/payment of monetary compensation would be governed by para 9.5.0. 9.3.3 the dependant for this purpose means the wife/husband as the case may be, unmarried daughter, son and legally adopted son. If no such direct dependant is available for employment, brother, widowed daughter/widowed daughter-in-law of son-in-law residing with the deceased and almost wholly dependant on the earnings of the deceased may be considered to be the dependent of the deceased. 9.3.4 the dependants to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged not more that 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years as given in Clause 9.5.0. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment. 7. Under letter dated 07.07.1992 of the M/s Coal India Limited procedure for determination of age on the basis of the recommendation of the Age Assessment Committee has been laid down. It provides as under: (a) Where no age is recorded in respect of any employees in any statutory records, and the Medical Board/Age Assessment Committee decide an age range, the mid point of the age range so recommended will be taken as the age of the concerned employees. For instance, if the range decided is 50 and 55, the age of the employee concerned will be 52 years 6 months. (b) Where there is variation of age in the various statutory records, the nearest point of the age range as recorded in Form-B register will be accepted as the age of the employee concerned. 8. Subsequently, to provide maximum benefit under the social security measures under the National Coal Wages Agreement, vide letter dated 22.10.2014 the claimants/dependents of the deceased employee have been provided an opportunity to get their age assessed through the Medical Board if they are in possession of Aadhar card, driving license, Voter's ID card, ration card, school living certificate etc. under which their age is recorded different from what has been recorded in the service-linked records of the ex-employees. The respondent has produced copies of Voter's ID card, Aadhar card etc. under which their age is recorded different from what has been recorded in the service-linked records of the ex-employees. The respondent has produced copies of Voter's ID card, Aadhar card etc. which according to him reflect his correct age and on that basis he is eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. 9. Stand taken by the respondent is that as on the date of the application he was below the age of 34 years which is less than the maximum age, that is, 35 years for appointment under M/s CCL. 10. By now it is well-settled that the scheme for compassionate appointment must be enforced in terms of the scheme itself [refer, “Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India and Others” reported in (2011) 4 SCC 209 ]. 11. In the service-linked records of his father as well as his mother; both were employed under M/s CCL, age of the respondent is recorded as 16 years in the year, 1995. In the gratuity nomination form his age is recorded as 16 years as on 18.10.1995, though there is some dispute raised by both the parties whether it should be 11.01.1995 or 23.05.1996. In Form-F his age is reflected as 16 years as on 20.11.1995, whereas as per his age recorded in the Voter's ID card he was about 25 years in the year, 2015 and on the basis of the Aadhar card he was 34 years of age in the year, 2015. 12. Apparently, there is huge discrepancies in the record produced by the respondent himself; about 10 years of gap in his age. Still, in terms of the directions as contained in letter dated 22.10.2014 he was called for his age assessment. The respondent's age was accordingly assessed by the Apex Medical Board which has given a report that his age would be in the range of 35 to 40 years. 13. The respondent has raised a plea that while considering his claim for compassionate appointment the appellant-M/s CCL must reckon his minimum age as assessed by the Apex Medical Board. 14. We do not find any substance in this contention. 15. The employer-M/s CCL through letter dated 07.07.1992 has laid down a procedure for determination of age on the basis of recommendation of the Medical Board. This letter was not challenged by the respondent as arbitrary and illegal. 14. We do not find any substance in this contention. 15. The employer-M/s CCL through letter dated 07.07.1992 has laid down a procedure for determination of age on the basis of recommendation of the Medical Board. This letter was not challenged by the respondent as arbitrary and illegal. Age of the respondent has been assessed pursuant to the guidelines contained in letter dated 22.10.2014 and in terms of the procedure prescribed under letter dated 07.07.1992. We do not find any illegality in the assessment of age of the respondent on the basis of the procedure laid down under letter dated 07.07.1992. It is primarily for the respondent to explain why there is such huge discrepancy in his date of birth, but he has miserably failed to give any plausible explanation for the same. 16. In the above facts, determination of age of the respondent on the basis of recommendation of the Apex Medical Board cannot be challenged. It cannot be held that the age assessed by the employer is imaginary. The learned writ Court has committed serious errors in law in interfering with the decision of the respondent-Authority on the ground that there is always a possibility of error of 2-3 years. 17. In the result, the impugned order dated 10.02.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2683 of 2016 is set-aside and the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed.