- (1.) The posts of Assistant Engineers were advertised in the year 1991 vide annexure P-1. As per terms and conditions of the advertisement, the age of the candidates should not be below 20 years and more than 35 years as on August 1, 1991. Subsequently, on April 13, 1993, twenty posts of Assistant Engineers were advertised vide annexure P-2 and the cut of date for the purpose of age was August 1, 1992. The allegation of the petitioners is that since all these thirty posts existed prior to the first advertisement, the cut of date should have been August 1, 1991 as given in annexure P-1 and if that is so, the petitioners were eligible to apply for the same. This contention cannot be accepted. It was the prerogative of the State to fill ten posts out of thirty posts if that number existed and if they have advertised only ten posts, those posts would be filled as per the criterion given in the advertisement, annexure P-1.
(2.) It is entirely different that on account of personal bond executed by the petitioners to serve the department for a period of five years that they could not apply for those ten posts advertised in August, 1991. Merely because twenty more posts were advertised subsequently in the year 1992 and the petitioners by then could apply for the posts, it cannot be said that their candidature should be considered for the ten posts.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner should be allowed to take benefit of Rule 8(1)(c) of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class III, P.W.D. (Building and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965, and extension of 5 years benefit in the matter of age for direct recruitment in respect of candidates already in service should be allowed. The aforesaid Rule reads as under :- "8. Direct Appointment :- (1) A candidate for direct appointment shall not be less than twenty years and more than twenty-five years of age on or before the first day of August, next preceding the last date of submission of applications to the Commission :- Provided that :- (a)--------- (b)--------- (c) in the case of candidates possessing the requisite qualifications who are already in the service of the State Government, the upper age limit shall be thirty years." The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is devoid of merit. Proviso (c) as quoted above only allows benefit of upper age limit upto 30 years. Now when advertisements (Annexures P-1 and P-2) were issued, the age is not to be less than twenty years and not more than 35 years on the relevant date. It is not for the Court to amend the Rule aforesaid that it should be automatically read as 40 years since the minimum and maximum ages as mentioned in Rule 8 stands modified as is shown from the advertisements. It is for the Rule-making Authority to amend the proviso, referred to above. As it is, no benefit can be derived by the petitioners. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed in limine. No costs.;