JUDGMENT
S. SarwarAli, J.
1. This is an application for quashing the resolution dated 2.12.1974, passed by the, Municipal Commissioner of Dinapur Nizamat, Municipality (hereinafter to be called the Municipality). By this resolution the commissioners held that the age of the petitioner was 58 years and consequently his service should be terminated. It was not the basis that the petitioner has reached, the age of superannuation.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as cattle feeder of the Municipality on 31.3.1943 with effect from 1.4.1943. In the year 1953 the service book of the petitioner was started where it was mentioned that his age was 30 years. The Executive Officer of the Municipality by his letter dated 24.1.1973, required the petitioner to produce proof of his age. The petitioner produced an authenticated copy of his school transfer certificate in proof of his age. A sub-committee of some of the Municipal Commissioners was thereafter constituted to look into the matter and submit its report. The report of the sub-committee was to the effect that the petitioners age was 30 years in the year 1953. The natural result of the acceptance of the report would be that the petitioner could not retire in the year 1974 when he was made to retire. It is stated in the petition that the Executive Officer without any information and knowledge of the petitioner got a report prepared from the Medical Officer of Health of the Municipality according to which the petitioner’s age was fixed at more, than 58 that the petitioner’s health was not such as to permit his continuance in service. Ultimately the matter came up before the Municipal Commissioners who passed the resolution as aforesaid. The petition states that on 30.11.1974, the petitioner had presented himself before the Deputy Superintendent of the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Dinapur, and got himself examined. The Deputy Superintendent, aforesaid, after examination found him mentally and physically fit and estimated his age as 52 years.
3. A show cause has been filed on behalf of the Municipality in which it is stated that the petitioner entered in service of the Municipality in the year 1946 and not in 1943 as claimed by the petitioner. The show cause supports the action taken by the Municipality stating that the Health Officer of the Municipality having found the petitioner 58 years of age and unfit to work the Municipality was entitled to take action it has taken in the instant case.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1943 relied on Annexure “2” which is said to be a letter appointment issued by the Chairman of the Municipality. He also relied on Annexure 18 which it is said was a resolution of the Municipality passed on the 19th March, 1945 which would show that increment of Rs. 1/- was sanctioned to the petitioner. The Municipality relied on the service book which was prepared in the year 1953 where the year of entry of the petitioner in Municipal service is recorded as 1946. We have examined the original service book which was produced by the learned Counsel for the respondent. There appears to be some overwriting in column 6 relating to the date of appointment in the year 1946. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further relied on model rules relating to the service condition of the Municipal employees in showing that the original age of recruitment in Municipality is between the age of 18 and 25 and that the petitioner could not have his entry in service of the Municipality which, according to the Municipality was in the year 1946. It is however, not necessary to adjudicate in this writ application as to what was the date of entry of the petitioner in the Municipal service.
5. The main infirmity in the resolution of the Municipality however is that it is based only on the report of the Municipal Health Officer. The Health Officer as already noticed, has estimated the age of the petitioner as 58. At or near about of the age it is not possible for a Medical Officer to give with exactitude of the age of any person. Nothing has been shown by learned Counsel for the respondents which would induce me to hold that it was scientifically possible for the Medical Officer to come to a definite conclusion in relation to the age of a person whom he had examined. The opinion of the Medical Officer, could, in the circumstance, be not conclusive in relation to the fixation of age of the petitioner. In my view, therefore, the Municipality has proceeded on an irrelevant consideration. The relevant consideration would have been various materials that were in possession of the Municipality and the petitioner and the Municipality could have arrived at a conclusion in relation to the age of the petitioner on the basis of those materials, which has not been done. In the circumstances, therefore, in my opinion the resolution of the Municipality was based on materials which could not be the basis of the conclusion for the purpose of fixation of the age of the petitioner. So far as the report regarding the physical fitness of the petitioner is concerned the resolution does not state in what respect and in what manner the petitioner was not found to be physically fit. The petitioner had produced certificate of another competent doctor in support of his physical fitness. This does not appear to have been considered by the Municipal Commissioners while passing the impugned resolution. The respondents have not shown that the Medical Officer of the Municipality had given any reason in the report for coming of physically fit. A bald opinion unsupported by reasons should not have been the ass of such drastic action as the termination of the service of a person, in this case he petitioner.
6. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the resolution of the Municipality relating to the petitioner is fit to be quashed. The application is accordingly allowed. The resolution, relating to the petitioners is quashed. It would however e open to the Municipality to re-consider he matter and to decide the question of age of the petitioner and other relevant natters, in the circumstances of the case here will be no order as to costs.