Manoj Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Siddharth Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. With their consent the writ petition is being finally decided at the admission stage itself. The facts of the case are that the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jhansi, invited applications for appointment on 589 posts of Safai Karmi in the Panchayat Raj Department, vide advertisement dated 28.7.2008. As per the advertisement, one of the eligibility conditions was that a candidate, as on 1.7.2007, should neither be less than 18 years nor more than 35 years in age. The petitioner No. 1, whose date of birth is 10.6.1990, and the petitioner No. 2, whose date of birth is 1.2.1990, applied pursuant to the advertisement and with their applications they enclosed their respective educational certificates disclosing their date of birth. Pursuant to their application for appointment, the petitioner No. 1 was granted appointment vide order dated 29.7.2008 and the petitioner No. 2 was granted appointment vide order dated 22.10.2008. Although the appointment order limited the period of appointment up to 28.2.2009 but as per paragraph No. 11 of the writ petition, which has not been specifically denied in the counter -affidavit, the aforesaid time limit was provided because, initially, the posts were sanctioned up to that period, which was subsequently extended and the petitioners continued to serve without any objection in that regard. However, on 30.4.2012, the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jhansi issued notice to the petitioners thereby calling upon the petitioners to explain as to why their services be not terminated on the ground that on 1.7.2007, the petitioners were below 18 years, which was the minimum age required for a candidate to be eligible, as per the advertisement. Petitioners submitted their reply to the show cause notice, thereafter, by separate orders dated 21.7.2012 (Annexure Nos. 7 -A & 7 -B), the service of the petitioners was terminated on the ground that they were not eligible as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement. It is this order of termination, which has been challenged through this petition.
(2.) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the minimum age for recruitment in services under the State Government is provided by Uttar Pradesh Recruitment in Services (Age Limit) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Age Limit Rules), which have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted that as per Rule 6 of the Age Limit Rules, 1972 a candidate must have attained the minimum age, and must not have attained the maximum age, as prescribed from time to time, on the first day of July of the calendar year in which vacancies for direct recruitment are advertised. Relying on Rule 6, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the vacancies, as per the advertisement, were first advertised on 16.6.2008 and, thereafter, the remaining vacancies were advertised again on 28.7.2008, therefore, the cut off date for attaining minimum age limit would be the first day of July, 2008 and not first day of July, 2007 as fixed in the advertisement. It has been submitted that as both the petitioners on the first day of July, 2008 were over 18 years in age, they were well within the age limit prescribed by the Rules. It has also been submitted that it is well -settled principle in law that where the eligibility condition prescribed in the advertisement is in direct conflict with the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, it is the Rule that would prevail. It has thus been submitted that the condition in the advertisement that a candidate must have attained the minimum age of 18 years as on 1.7.2007 ought to have been read as 1.7.2008 so as to make it in consonance with the Rules. It has been submitted that termination of service of the petitioners, after nearly four years of service, on the above ground, is arbitrary and illegal, particularly when the petitioners were fully eligible under the Age limit Rules, 1972. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that as the advertisement had clearly provided a cut off date i.e. 1.7.2007 for attaining minimum age by a candidate and the petitioners had, admittedly, not attained the minimum age on the cut off date, therefore, their services were rightly terminated. It has also been submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as they had not earlier challenged the cut off date fixed in the advertisement.
(3.) BEFORE examining the weight of the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties it would be useful to examine the provisions of U.P. Recruitment in Services (Age Limit) Rules, 1972. It is not disputed that these Rules are applicable to the post in question. Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules, a copy whereof has been enclosed with the counter -affidavit, provides as follows: 6. Computation of Age. - -Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any service rules, for the services and posts, whether within or outside 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 first day of July of the calendar year in which vacancies for direct recruitment are advertised by the Public Service Commission or any other recruiting authority, or as the case may be, such vacancies are intimated to the Employment Exchange. Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to a case where such advertisement or intimation has been made before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Age Limit) (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 1984.;