PRABHU DAYAL SESMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point involved in this appeal by special leave pertains to the determination of age at a particular point of time. The question is whether the appellant, having his date of birth as January 2, 1956 had attained the age of 28 years on January 1, 1984 and was therefore disqualified from being considered for direct recruitment to the Rajasthan Administrative Service under R. 11B of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service, (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962 (for short 'the Rules').

(2.) Put very briefly, the essential facts are these. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission invited applications for direct recruitment to the Rajasthan Administrative, Service and allied services of the Government of Rajasthan by a competitive examination to be held in 1983. Under the directions issued by the Commission, the minimum age prescribed for candidates was 21 years and. the maximum 28 years. It was prescribed that the candidate should have attained the age of 21 years on January 1, 1984 and should not have attained the age of 28 years i.e. on the first day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of application. The appellant was allowed to appear in the written examination, but by an order dated June 12, 1984, the Assistant Secretary to the Commission intimated the appellant that his candidature was rejected on the ground that he had attained the age of 28 years on January 1, 1984 and was therefore ineligible for consideration. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and contended that his date of birth was January 2, 1956 and that he had not attained the age of 28 years on January 1, 1984. His claim was contested by the respondents who pleaded that the appellant had attained the age of 28 years on January 1, 1984 and therefore his form was property rejected. During the pendency of the writ petition, the High Court by an interim order dated September 14, 1984 directed the Commission to interview the appellant if he was otherwise eligible for being considered except on the ground of ago. The appellant was accordingly interviewed but the result was withheld. A learned single Judge by his judgment and order dated January 19, 1985 held that if the date of birth of the appellant was January 2, 1956 he would complete the age of 28 years only at the end of the day of January 1, 1984 and therefore he could not be said to have attained the age of 28 years on that date. He accordingly held that the Commission was not justified in rejecting the candidature of the appellant on the ground that he had attained the age of 28 years on January 1, 1984 And therefore was not eligible for consideration.

(3.) On appeal, a Division Bench disagreed with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge and reversed his judgment on the ground that the words used in R. 11-B of the Rules are, 'must not have attained the age of 28 years on the first day or January next following the last date fixed for receipt of application' and not that he should have completed the age of 28 years on that day. They relied upon the undisputed fact that the first day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of application in this case was January 1, 1984. Accordingly, they held that the appellant was born on January 2, 1956 and, as such, he had attained the age of 28 years as soon as the first day of January 1984 commenced. They further held that the appellant had not only attained the age of 28 years, but had also completed the same at 12 O'clock in the midnight of January 1, 1984.According to the learned Judges, on January 2, 1984, the appellant would be one day more than 28 years and, as such, he was disqualified to appear at the examination under R. 11-B of the Rules. The conclusion of the learned Judges may best be stated in their own words: