Age assessment by the court-directed medical board attained finality, barring subsequent reassessment absent procedural irregularity.

The respondent’s father, a safai karmachari employed at Kalla Central Hospital of Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL), died in harness on 14 January 2021.

The respondent, claiming compassionate appointment under the National Coal Wages Agreement (NCWA), declared his age as 33 years and received provisional appointment as a Safai Karmachari with effect from 15 January 2021.

During document verification, an ECL Medical Board assessed his age as between 35 and 40 years on 25 May 2021.

Since the NCWA prescribed 35 years as the upper age limit, and the respondent was also found deficient in vision, his provisional appointment was terminated on 10 July 2021.

An Apex Medical Board of ECL reassessed his age on 19 November 2021 and concurred with the earlier assessment.

In the writ proceedings, the Single Judge directed the Superintendent of IPGMER–SSKM Hospital to constitute an independent Medical Board and conduct an ossification test.

The direction was upheld by a Division Bench in MAT 1434 of 2023.

The IPGMER–SSKM Board examined the respondent on 12 April 2024 and assessed his age as between 30 and 40 years on the date of examination.

Treating the mean age of the range as 35 years and notionally reducing it to the date of provisional appointment, the Single Judge held that the respondent was below 35 years on 15 January 2021, set aside the termination, and directed reinstatement.

ECL challenged that decision in the present intra-court appeal.

1. Whether ECL could seek a fresh age assessment by another medical institution, including AIIMS Kalyani, after the IPGMER–SSKM assessment conducted pursuant to orders affirmed in MAT 1434 of 2023?

2. Whether the Single Judge was justified in relying on the IPGMER–SSKM age assessment and directing reinstatement of the respondent to compassionate employment?

3. Whether the respondent was within the NCWA’s upper age limit of 35 years on the date of his provisional appointment?

The Court applied the NCWA requirement prescribing 35 years as the upper age limit for compassionate appointment.

It accepted the principle that, where a medical age assessment gives a range, the mean of that range is taken as the assessed age for relevant purposes; accordingly, the mean of 30–40 years was 35 years.

The Court further applied the doctrine of finality and judicial discipline: an order directing age assessment by IPGMER–SSKM, having been affirmed by a coordinate Division Bench in MAT 1434 of 2023 and complied with by ECL, could not be indirectly reopened in the present appeal.

In exercising judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, interference with a medical assessment requires a demonstrated procedural irregularity or other legally sufficient basis; a mere desire for a further assessment is insufficient.

The Court held that ECL had participated in the IPGMER–SSKM assessment and had not challenged the process on the ground of procedural irregularity either during the examination or thereafter.

The direction for that assessment had already been affirmed in MAT 1434 of 2023, which ECL did not carry to a higher forum; therefore, the issue of the appropriate age-assessment process had attained finality and could not be revisited through the present appeal.

The IPGMER–SSKM assessment was conducted by a Board of medical experts through an ossification test and assessed the respondent’s age as 30–40 years, yielding a mean age of 35 years.

Since the assessment occurred in 2024, the Single Judge reasonably applied the corresponding reduction to the date of provisional appointment in January 2021 and concluded that the respondent was then below the 35-year limit.

ECL produced no material undermining the scientific assessment or demonstrating any procedural defect warranting judicial interference.

ECL was directed to reinstate the respondent as Safai Karmachari within four weeks from communication of the appellate judgment.

The respondent was also held entitled to count the period from his termination on 10 July 2021 until reinstatement for all notional benefits.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of.