WRIT PETITION 34 of 2005 on 15 October 2003

JUDGMENT

Coram: Hon. Rajeev Gupta, C. J.Hon. P.C. Verma, J.

P.C. Verma, J. (Oral)

1. These two Special Appeals have been filed against the judgment andorder dated 15.10.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ PetitionNo. 1230 (S/S) of 2003. Since these two appeals arise from one judgment,therefore, they are being disposed of by one and common judgment.

2. The only question that falls for consideration in these appeals is as towhether for computation of the minimum age limit and maximum age limitprescribed under Rule 6 of the U.P. Recruitment Service (Age Limit)Rules, 1972, first day of July of the calendar year is inclusive or exclusive.

Rule 6 reads as under:

“6. Computation of Age: Notwithstanding anything to thecontrary contained in any service rules for the services and posts,whether within or outside the purview of Public ServiceCommission, a candidate must have attained the minimum age andmust have not attained the maximum age, as prescribed from time totime, on the first day of July of the Calendar year, in whichvacancies for direct recruitment are advertised by the Public ServiceCommission or any other recruiting authority, or as the case may be,such vacancies are intimated to the Employment Exchange.”

A bare perusal of the Rule itself shows that a candidate must attain theminimum age on the first July of recruitment year and must not haveattained the maximum age on first July of the recruitment year. Thus, the1[st] July is inclusive and not exclusive, meaning thereby a candidate mustattain age of 21 years on 30[th] June and must not attain the age of 35 yearson 30[th] June. In the advertisement pursuant to which the writ petitioner(respondent herein) has applied for recruitment under Clause 8, it isspecifically mentioned that a candidate must not have born after01.07.1982 and before 02.07.1968. In the present appeals, the writpetitioners was born on 01.07.1968 meaning thereby he had attained theage of 35 years on 30[th] June, 2003. Thus, in view of the Rule 6 of U.P.Recruitment Service (Age Limit) Rules, 1972 and Clause 8 of theAdvertisement, the petitioner was over-age.

3. For the reasons recorded above, we set aside the impugned judgmentand allow the special appeals. Writ petition is dismissed. No order as tocosts.

(P.C. Verma, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C. J.)