ORDER : 1. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 14.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1078 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the writ petition was allowed and impugned orders as contained in communication dated 14.09.2015 and 08.12.2016 were quashed and set aside with direction upon the respondents-Project Officer, Urimari Project, Barka Sayal Area, Central Coalfields Limited to call upon the petitioner to produce necessary documents, if any, required for his appointment on a suitable post. 2. The brief facts, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, read as under: The father of the writ petitioner died in harness on 18.06.2014 while working and posted as Wagon Loader Railway Siding in Barka-Sayal Area, CCL. Immediately thereafter, the mother of the petitioner submitted an application on 03.07.2014 before the Chief Manager, CCL, Darbhanga House, Ranchi for grant of compassionate appointment of the petitioner. But when the case of petitioner was not considered, the petitioner submitted another application on 03.09.2015 before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CCL, Ranchi. Pursuant thereto vide order as contained in letter dated 14.09.2015 the petitioner was held to be precluded to seek compassionate appointment on the ground of being over-aged. Thereafter, the petitioner was medically examined for assessment of his age, where he was found to be aged about 35-40 years old as on 15.09.2016. Therefore, the case of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 08.12.2016 by not accepting the date of birth recorded as 20.06.1984 in the certificate of Prathama, which is equivalent to Matriculation, issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad and other relevant documents. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition for quashing the order as contained in letter dated 14.09.2015, by which he was precluded to seek compassionate appointment on the ground of being over-aged and order as contained in communication dated 08.12.2016, by which, his case for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that date of birth mentioned in the certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad has been held inadmissible. The writ Court, taking into consideration the fact that the Matriculation (Prathama) certificate produced by the petitioner has not been found to be fake certificate and further the age determined by the Medical Board has wide range in age, allowed the writ petition by quashing the impugned orders and directed respondents-authorities to call upon the petitioner to produce necessary documents, if any, required for his appointment on a suitable post, which is the subject matter of instant intra-court appeal. 3. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the appellant-CCL has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that once the certificate issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad has been held to be inadmissible in view of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar and Another vs. Union of India and Others, (2010) 12 SCC 609 , the said certificate for any other purposes also cannot be taken into consideration otherwise there will be chance of commission of forgery by getting the certificate for other purposes i.e. for the purpose of acceptance of date of birth but this aspect of the matter since has not been considered in the order impugned, it requires interference by this Court. Further contention has been raised that if the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the effect of acceptance of date of birth mentioned in the certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad will not be discarded then it will amount to opening of flood gate and so many persons/candidates who have crossed the age of 35 years will offer his candidature on the basis of date of birth mentioned in such certificate issued by such society/institution, which are registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-respondent has submitted that it is not the case where only the learned Single Judge has put reliance upon the date of birth referred in the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad rather the appellants-CCL has assessed the date of birth of the petitioner by Medical Board, which has assessed the age of the petitioner to be 35-40 years and it is settled position of law that when the age of a candidate has been mentioned in between a particular period, the minimum of the same has to be taken into consideration for assessment of age. In that view of the matter, it is evident from the age assessed of the petitioner by the Medical Board that it has assessed the age of the petitioner in between 35 to 40 years, as such the minimum age of 35 years has to be taken into consideration for assessment of age for all purposes including appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, the writ petitioner will come under the fold of consideration of his candidature for appointment on compassionate ground where the maximum age has been fixed 35 years, as provided under the condition stipulated under NCWA. Therefore, the writ petitioner will come under the fold of consideration of his candidature for appointment on compassionate ground where the maximum age has been fixed 35 years, as provided under the condition stipulated under NCWA. In support of his submission, he has referred to the judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court passed in LPA No. 687 of 2019 in the case of Lilwa Bhuiyan vs. Central Coalfields Limited and Others, wherein Co-ordinate Division Bench has laid down that the age, if assessed by the Medical Board, wherein the Board has assessed the age of writ petitioner-appellant of LPA No. 687 of 2019 in between 35 to 40 years and by taking the mid-point of five years, his age was assessed to be 37½ years, which was since the above than minimum cut-off age i.e. 35 years, hence, his candidature was rejected, while considering the said aspect of the matter, this Co-ordinte Bench has formulated a question that why the midpoint on the basis of the assessment of 35 to 40 years is to be followed, while answering the same, it has been held that counting of midpoint of age cannot be said to be action to achieve the object and intent of the NCWA to provide social security measure to the dependent of the deceased rather the approach of the respondents-authorities ought to have consider the age of the writ petitioner by taking its lower age, so that the object and intend of NCWA be achieved. Herein also, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has made submission that the Medical Board has assessed the age of the petitioner in between 35 to 40 years and minimum being the 35 years, hence, the writ petitioner is eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, submission has been made that even if the ground of date of birth mentioned in the certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad will be considered to be not proper then also it is on the basis of age assessed by the Medical Board to be in between 35 to 40 years, age of the petitioner will be considered to be 35 years making him eligible for consideration of his case of appointment on compassionate ground as per provisions made in NCWA. 5. Upon such submission, Mr. 5. Upon such submission, Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-CCL has not disputed the law laid down in the order passed by Co-ordinate Division in LPA 687 of 2019 [Lilwa Bhuiyan Vs. Central Coalfields Limited & Ors], however, his only concern is that the finding so recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order by putting reliance upon the date of birth mentioned in the certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad ought not to have been relied upon in view of settled position of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar and Another vs. Union of India and Others (supra), wherein the certificate issued by such institution has been held to be inadmissible. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record and the finding recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order. The facts of the case, which are not in dispute is that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 18.06.2014. The writ petitioner made application for appointment on compassionate ground on 03.07.2014 annexing therewith the certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad in proof of his date of birth where his date of birth has been mentioned as 20th June, 1984. It appears that the petitioner was medically examined for determination of his date of birth, wherein his date of birth was found to be in between 35 to 40 years as on 15.09.2016. However, the appellants-authorities vide order as contained in letter dated 14.09.2015 precluded the petitioner to seek compassionate appointment on the ground of being over-aged and further vide order as contained in communication dated 08.12.2016 the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground that the date of birth mentioned in the certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad has been held inadmissible. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 1078 of 2017, which was allowed vide order/judgment dated 14.09.2017 accepting the date of birth mentioned in the certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad by coming to the conclusion that the certificate so issued by such institution although is held to be inadmissible but that cannot be said to be fake/forged and as such merely because certificate has been held to be inadmissible the date of birth referred therein cannot be disbelieved and accordingly, the decision so taken by the appellants-authorities was quashed and set aside, against which, the instant intra-court appeal has been preferred. 7. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellants has taken the ground that once the certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad has been held to be inadmissible by the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar and Another vs. Union of India and Others (supra) and as such the same cannot be accepted for any other purposes including for acceptance of date of birth otherwise the same will open the flood gate and the candidate even though have crossed the maximum age will come out with the certificate issued by such institution and as such the learned Single Judge has since without taking into consideration that aspect of the matter has passed the impugned order, the same requires interference by this Court. However, he has not disputed the fact about the ratio laid down by co-ordinate Division Bench in LPA No. 687 of 2019 [Lilwa Bhuiyan vs. Central Coalfields Limited and Others] wherein age assessed by the Medical Board has been considered by taking the age assessed at lower side, therefore, is not in a position to dispute the minimum age of 35 years as assessed by the Medical Board in between 35 to 40 years for the purpose of consideration of case of writ petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground. Even if the date of birth mentioned in the certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad will not be relied upon. 8. This Court after appreciating the aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of appellants-CCL is first require to answer as to: “Whether the finding recorded by learned Single Judge by accepting the date of birth mentioned in the certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad can be said to be correct finding?” 9. 8. This Court after appreciating the aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of appellants-CCL is first require to answer as to: “Whether the finding recorded by learned Single Judge by accepting the date of birth mentioned in the certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad can be said to be correct finding?” 9. This Court, for the purpose of answering the aforesaid issue, has considered the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar and Another vs. Union of India and Others (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the legality and propriety of the certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad has been pleased to held at paragraph 51, which reads as under: “51. At the cost of repetition, it may be pertinent to mention here that in view of the above, we have reached to the following inescapable conclusions: (I) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is neither a University/Deemed University nor an Educational Board. (II) It is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. (III) It is not an educational institution imparting education in any subject inasmuch as the Ayurveda or any other branch of medical field. (IV) No school/college imparting education in any subject is affiliated to it. Nor Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is affiliated to any University/Board. (V) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has got no recognition from the Statutory Authority after 1967. No attempt had ever been made by the Society to get recognition as required under Section 14 of the Act, 1970 and further did not seek modification of entry No. 105 in II Schedule to the Act, 1970. (VI) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan only conducts examinations without verifying as to whether the candidate has some elementary/basic education or has attended classes in Ayurveda in any recognized college. (VII) After commencement of Act, 1970, a person not possessing the qualification prescribed in Schedule II, III & IV to the Act, 1970 is not entitled to practice. (VIII) Mere inclusion of name of a person in the State Register maintained under the State Act is not enough making him eligible to practice. (IX) The right to practice under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is not absolute and thus subject to reasonable restrictions as provided under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. (VIII) Mere inclusion of name of a person in the State Register maintained under the State Act is not enough making him eligible to practice. (IX) The right to practice under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is not absolute and thus subject to reasonable restrictions as provided under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. (X) Restriction on practice without possessing the requisite qualification prescribed in Schedule II, III & IV to the Act, 1970 is not violative of Article 14 or ultra vires to any of the provisions of the State Act.” It is evident from the aforesaid proposition of law, as laid down at paragraph 51, the Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad to be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and not to be a university/deemed university or an educational board. Therefore, this Court after taking into consideration the aforesaid proposition is of the view that certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad if has been considered to be inadmissible then for all other purposes also the said certificate cannot be relied upon. The question which has been raised that if the date of birth mentioned in such certificate will be allowed to be relied upon there will be mis-utilization on the part of the candidate who has crossed the maximum age of appointment cannot be denied reason being that if a candidate crosses the age of maximum age for consideration of his appointment he will approach such society and get a certificate of making reference of his date of birth according to his/her suitability and will be able to get the job. 10. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the finding so recorded by the learned Single Judge by discarding the proposition laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court holding such certificate inadmissible will be said to be inadmissible for all practical purposes including assessment of date of birth, reason being that a document issued from a society, like in this case since the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has been held to be a society by the Hon’ble Apex Court, hence will have no legal sanctity so far as age is concerned since age is only to be accepted if as contained in the certificate issued by the Board or council constituted by the State. 11. 11. This Court is now proceeding as to whether even the finding so recorded which is based upon the admissibility of date of birth mentioned in the certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad even if held to be improper as per the discussion made herein above, there will be any difference in outcome as has been arrived at learned Single Judge? 12. This Court while answering the issue, is of the view that for the purpose of answering the issue the reference of the judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 687 of 2019 [Lilwa Bhuiyan vs. Central Coalfields Limited and Others] is required to be considered, wherein the issue fell for consideration that on the basis of one communication issued by the Central Coalfields Limited dated 07.07.1992 which has been meant to assess the age of the employee taking the midpoint of age as has been assessed by Medical Board. 13. The Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court has not considered the said document to be applicable for the purpose of consideration of a case at the time of getting entry in service rather the said document speaks about assessment of age for in-service candidate. The Co-ordinate Division Bench therefore, has come to the conclusion by taking into consideration the very intent and object of the agreement-NCWA it is to provide social security measures to the dependent of the deceased-employee and as such it has been considered that the midpoint of the assessment of the age cannot be said to be proper rather proper would be by taking lower point so that object and intent of the NCWA be achieve. Reference of part of paragraph 14 is required to be made herein, which reads as under: 14. Reference of part of paragraph 14 is required to be made herein, which reads as under: 14. … … … The respondent CCL, however, failed to produce any decision of the authority, in case of consideration of appointment on compassionate ground, to take the midpoint of the age assessed by the Medical Board as has been done in the instant case, rather the document dated 07.07.1992 has been produced to assess the age of an employee by taking the midpoint of the age as has been assessed by the Medical Board but since it is not a case of an employee rather the case of a candidate who is seeking appointment on compassionate ground and, therefore, the said circular will not be applicable in the case of the writ petitioner and in that view of the matter, when the respondent authorities have asked the writ petitioner to go for the medical examination wherein the age of the writ petitioner has been assessed in between 35 to 40 years and taking the midpoint the age of the writ petitioner has been assessed as 37½ years of age, cannot be said to be an action to achieve the object and intent of the NCWA to provide social security measures to the dependant of the deceased employee, rather the approach of the respondent authorities ought to have been to consider the age of the writ petitioner by taking its lower point so that the object and intent of NCWA be achieved. 14. This Court, taking into consideration the aforesaid fact and the assessment of age made by the Medical Board, wherein the age of the writ petitioner has been assessed to be in between 35 to 40 years and hence, by taking the minimum point i.e, 35 years the writ petitioner will be said to be within the maximum age for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground as per NCWA. Considering the same this Court is of the view that herein also since the writ petitioner on the basis of applicability of judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 21.11.2022 passed in S.L.P. (C) Diary No. 31747 of 2022 is of the view that the age of the writ petitioner is to be considered to be 35 years as per assessment made by Medical Board constituted by the appellants-CCL itself, hence, the rejection of the case of the petitioner for his appointment on the ground that he has crossed the age of 35 years cannot be said to be proper. 15. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that even if the age relied upon by the writ petitioner, as referred in the certificate issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad is inadmissible for acceptance of date of birth then also the writ petitioner is entitled for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of assessment of age made by the medical board taking its lower age to be 35. 16. Accordingly, as per the discussions made hereinabove, the outcome as has been arrived at by the learned Single Judge requires no interference. 17. Accordingly, this instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 18. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the appellants-CCL has sought for six weeks’ time to take decision for the purpose of compliance of the order passed by learned Single Judge. 19. As prayed for, six weeks is granted to comply the order passed by learned Single Judge. 20. In view of disposal of intra-court appeal, the pending Interlocutory Application, stands disposed of.