JUDGMENT S. R. Singh, J.
1. Certain vacancies in Class III posts in the Judgeship of Banda were publicised by means of the notification which came to be published in NAVKAAMYUG PRAKASHAN, a newspaper issuing from Banda, on 28.8.1996 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The challenge herein is to a part of the notification fixing 1.10.1996 as the cut-off date for the purpose of computing the prescribed age-limit. The notification embodies the condition that the candidates should not be less than 18 years and more than 32 years of age on 1.10.1996.
2. The bottom-line of the argument advanced by petitioner's counsel is that according to Notification No. 18/2/81, Karmik-2, Lucknow dated December 11, 1984 (Annexure-3), the prescribed age-limit is to be determined with reference to 1st day of July of the year in which vacancies are notified for direct recruitment and, therefore, the District Judge, submitted the learned counsel, was not justified in fixing 1.10.1986 as the cut-off date for the purpose of determining the minimum and maximum age limits prescribed by law. In the counter-affidavit, it is posited that U. P. State Services (Age-limit) (5th Amendment) Rules, 1984, are Intended for application to U. P. State Services other than the services under the Ministerial Establishment of Subordinate Courts which services are governed by the U. P. Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 which, it is further canvassed, do not postulate that the age-limit should be computed with reference to Ist day of July of the calendar year in which the vacancies are notified. Learned standing counsel tried to buttress the stand taken in the counter-affidavit.
3. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the questions involved herein and submissions made across the bar.
4. The Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 were enacted by the Governor of United Province in pursuance of the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) and clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935 in supersession of all the existing Rules and Orders on the subject. The rules were actuallsed and made applicable to all persons in the Ministerial Establishment of the Civil Courts Subordinate to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Chief Court of Oudh at Lucknow. Rule 6 of the Rules aforestated provides that a candidate for recruitment to a post in the Ministerial Establishment should not be less than 18 years or more than 27 years of age on the date of competitive test held for the purpose, provided that--
"A candidate for recruitment to a post in the ministerial establishment shall not be less than 18 or more than 27 years of age on the date of the competitive test held for the purpose, provided that-
(i) any continuous period spent in Civil Service of the Government and any period spent after the third day of September, 1939 in the service of His Majesty's Naval, Military or Air Force shall be deducted from the age of the applicant for the purpose of deciding his eligibility ;
(ii) the District Judge may with the sanction of the High Court or the Chief Court, as the case may be, extend the age-limit in favour of a candidate on the grounds of public Interest or fair dealing ;
(iii) the maximum age-limit applicable to a candidate of the Scheduled Castes for service under these rules shall be greater by one year than the maximum age-limit prescribed for other candidates."
On 15.2.1980, the upper age-limit for direct recruitment in Subordinate Civil Courts, was raised to 28 years and later on by C.L. No. 2/VIIf-208/Admn. (D), dated 7.1.1986 the maximum age-limit was raised to 30 years and by C.L. No. 54/VIIf-208/Admn. (D) dated 26.8.1991, the upper age-limit was further raised to 32 years with effect from 30th March. 1991, keeping in view the-amendments made In Rule 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Age-limit) Rules, 1972. The Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 were made in exercise of powers under the Government of India Act, 1935 which was repealed by virtue of Article 395 of the Constitution together with all enactments amending or supplementing the said Act but excluding the Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act, 1949. However, a provision has been made in Article 372 of the Constitution that notwithstanding the repeal of the Government of India Act, 1935, "all the law in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall continue in force therein until altered or repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent authority." The question that begs an answer is whether the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 have been altered, repealed or amended in any respect of the U. P. Recruitment to Services (Age-limit) Rules, 1972.
5. Rule 4 of the said 1972 Rules, has an overriding effect. The rule as amended by the 1st Amendment Rules, 1979 reads as under :
"4. Overriding effect of the rules.--(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the relevant rules, these rules shall have effect in all cases, except the following :
(a) where examination is necessary and it has already been held ;
(b) where only interview is required, It has already been held ;
(c) where selection is held without any examination or interview. It has already been made.
(2) If advertisements have been issued or applications have been Invited for selection to any post before the promulgation of (the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Age-limit) (First Amendment) Rules, 1979, computation of age will be made from the same date which was specified in the advertisement or in the order inviting the applications)."
The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Age-limit) Rules, 1972 was amended from time to time and by 5th Amendment Rules, 1984, a new Rule 6 was Inserted which reads as under :
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any Service Rules, for the services and posts whether within or without the purview of the Public Service Commission, a candidate must have attained the minimum age and must not have attained the maximum age as prescribed from time to time on the 1st day of July of the calendar year in which the vacancies for direct recruitment are advertised by the Public Service Commission or any other Recruiting authorities or as the case may be, such vacancies are Intimated to the Employment Exchange..... provided that....." (Proviso being irrelevant is omitted).
The expression "any Service Rules" occurring In Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Age-limit) Rules, 1972, as inserted by 5th Amendment Rules, 1984 is significant. It, in my opinion, embraces within its sweep the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 and, therefore, the expression 'on the date of competitive test held for the purpose' occurring in Rule 6 of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Rules, 1947 being inconsistent with Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Age-limit) Rules, 1972 as amended by 5th Amendment Rules, 1984 which prescribes 1st day of July of the calendar year In which the vacancies are advertised as the relevant date, stands repealed/amended/altered by virtue of rules 4 and 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (age-limit) Rules, 1972 and no longer holds the field in view of Article 372 of the Constitution. It may usefully be set out here that Rules 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 were earlier held to be superseded by the U. P. Recruitment of Ministerial Staff to Subordinate Offices Rules, 1950 vide Om Prakash v. Akhilesh Kumar, AIR 1986 1043. Irresistible conclusion, therefore, is that in view of Rule 6 of age-limit Rules, 1972 as inserted by 5th Amendment Rules, 1984 w.e.f. 1 1.12.1984, the cut-off date for the purpose of computing the age-limit for direct recruitment in the Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment should be the first day of July of the calendar year in which the vacancies for direct recruitment are advertised. The Impugned advertisement. In so far as it has prescribed 1.10.1986 as the cut-off date for the purpose of computing the age-limit being one in antagonism of law, merits to be struck off. The necessary corollary is that in case the petitioner was within the age-limit as on 1st day of July of the calendar year In which the vacancies were advertised, he would be deemed to be eligible unless tainted by any other disqualification.
6. The cut-off date, i.e., 1.10.1996 as fixed by the Distt. Judge, for the purpose of computing the age-limit is incompatible even with the requirement of Rule 6 of 1947 Rules inasmuch as 1.10.1996 could not be the date of the competitive test for 16th October, 1996 was the last date for receipt of the application as per clause (8) of the advertisement in question. The petitioner, It is eloquent from the record, did appear in the competitive test as a result of the orders of the Court and in case he was within the prescribed age-limit on 1st July of the calendar year in which the vacancies were advertised, the District Judge shall declare his result and initiate all necessary steps that may be called for in the event the petitioner is found to have romped home on merit.
7. Let a copy of this judgment be placed before the Registry for issue of appropriate circular in the light of this Judgment.
8. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed in terms of the above directions.