- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. An advertisement was made through U. P. Public Service Com mission in respect of several posts includ ing those of Principal in Government Col leges and post of Senior Lecturers in Dis trict Institute of Education and Training. The petitioner was qualified in the preliminary examination but he was refused permission to appear in the main examination on the ground that he is un derage. According to Clause 4 of the said advertisement, the age was prescribed as between 30 and 35 years for the post of Senior Lecturers in District Institute of Education and Training whereas the petitioner is below 30years.
(2.) MR. Ashok Bhushan, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the age prescribed in the advertisement having been no basis and support in law could not be taken to be valid on the basis of the extent rules governing the subject. If there is any inconsistency in the advertisement and rules in that event according to him the rules will prevail. Relying on Rule 10 of the U. P. Educational (General Education Cadre) Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter called as the 1992 Rules), Mr. Ashok Bhushan con tends that except the post of Government Intermediate Colleges (for Boys and Girls), age for other posts would be be tween 21 and 32years. Unless the rules are amended such prescription of age in the advertisement could not be included. Therefore, the ground on which the petitioner is being refused permission to appear in the main examination cannot be sustained. The second point advanced by Mr. Ashok Bhushan was that the petitioner had applied with all particulars and disclosed his age. Despite such dis closure, he was allowed to appear in the preliminary examination and was con sidered and ultimately qualified in the said preliminary examination, therefore, the petitioner can not be denied the oppor tunity on the principle that the respon dents are estopped from taking the said plea after having allowed the petitioner to appear in the preliminary examination which according to him should be deemed to have been done in view of the relevant rules applicable in the case. Mr. V. M. Sahai, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that since rule having not been amended, therefore, the said rule cannot be applied in the case of the petitioner. Unless and until the post is included in the cadre and the rule is amended, by no stretch of imagination, the relevant rule referred to above by Mr. Ashok Bhushan cannot be attracted in the present case. The post having been created and sought to be filled up on the basis of the Govern ment Order, therefore, the advertisement issued pursuant to the Government decision is binding. He secondly contends that the petitioner having appeared in the examination knowing fully and being aware of the situation as is appearing on the basis of the advertisement, after having refused permission to appear in the main examination, he can not turn round and challenge the advertisement itself as being wrong. It is no more open to him to claim any benefit beyond the purview of the ad vertisement itself.
(3.) BOTH the learned Counsel had ar gued the case at length and had referred to various documents which are annexures to the pleadings as well as the rules in sup port of their respective contentions. Mr. Ashok Bhushan, learned Counsel for the petitioner had also relied on the decision in the case of C. L. Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 437, in support of his case that administrative instruction can not compete with a statutory rule and if there be contrary provisions in the rule the ad ministrative instructions must give way and the rule shall prevail.;