Sr. No. 08 Regular IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 390/2025 CM(916/2025) Caveat 3142/2024 UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS …Petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Through: Mr. Abdul Rashid Malik, Sr. AAG & Mr. Mohammad Younis, Assisting Counsel Vs. ABDUL HAMID LONE ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Rizwan ul Zaman, Advocate for Caveator/Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE ORDER 03.03.2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir which is aggrieved by the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar by which the ossification test of the respondent was directed to ascertain his age. 2. The petition was filed by the respondent herein before the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar which was challenging his age recorded by the State as 24.02.1966 which he wanted it to be changed to 18.01.1969 as reflected in the school leaving certificate issued by the Headmaster, Islamia Middle School, Kulgam. 3. Learned counsel for the UT submits that the age of the respondent was fixed as 24.02.1966 only on the basis of his physical appearance. The said procedure cannot be held as desirable by this Court. However, there are other facts which need to be considered on the basis of which the Tribunal may arrive at the date of the birth of the respondent. Such documentary evidence which may be provided by the respondent may be taken into account by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal while deciding the case on merits with regard to his actual date of birth. 4. The direction for ossification test is, however, set aside as the same does not give a precise finding on date of birth of the respondent but only gives a range of 02 years, plus or minus. The learned Tribunal is also requested to take into account the case of the Union Territory with regard to the alleged delay of over 30 years as stated by learned senior AAG in preferring an application by the respondent for change of his date of birth. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal is also requested to take into account the contention of respondent that he had already filed an application way back in 1995 itself for correction of the said date. 5. All these are disputed questions of facts which have to be ascertained by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal. 6. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 23.09.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration on the basis of material on record. 7. This Court also requests the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, if possible, to decide the case as expeditiously as possible. 8. The petition stands disposed of. (PUNEET GUPTA) (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR 03.03.2025 Aamir Amir Rashid Sofi I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 04.03.2025 16:11