IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13288 of 2007 1. RAI MADAN KISHORE,son of Late Batti lal Rai, Deputy Secretary, labour, Employment and Training Department, Governmment of Bihar, Patna. 2. KAMTA PRASAD PANDEY, son of Late Gorakh Nath pandey Director, National Employment Programme, Patna ….Petitioners Versus 1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Administration (Department of personnel and Training) Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2. Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 3. Under Secretary, Ministry of personnel, Public Grievances and Administration (Department of Personnel and Training), Government of India, New Delhi. 4. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar. ... Respondents 4. 01.04.2009 Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh for the petitioner, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Government Pleader No.11 for respondent no.4. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 30.7.2007, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A.No. 780 of 2005 (Rai Madan Kishore & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.), and its analogous case bearing O. A. No.336 of 2006, whereby the two original applications have been rejected by a common order. The applicants of 2 O.A.No.780 of 2005 have challenged the order by preferring the present petition, and we are not concerned with the applicants of O.A.No.336 of 2006. It relates to non-consideration of cases of the applicants attaining the age of 54 years on the first day of January of the year the Committee meets. The two petitioners are members of the Bihar Administrative Service and were candidates for appointment by promotion to the Indian Administrative Service. The petitioners have been declared ineligible and have not been considered in view of the bar engrafted in Sub-Rule 3 to Regulation 5 of Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by promotion) Regulations,1955(hereinafter to be referred to as „the Regulation‟). The same is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference:- “ The Committee shall not [* * *) consider the cases of the members of the State Civil Service who have attained the age of [54] years on the first day of January of the year in which it meets: [provided that a member of the State Civil Service whose name appears in the select list in force immediately before the date of the meeting of the Committee and who has not been appointed to the Service only because he was included provisionally in the select list shall be considered for inclusion in the fresh list to be prepared by the Committee, even if he has in the meanwhile attained the age of fifty-four years: [provided further that a member of the State Civil Service who has attained the age of fifty-four years on the first day of January of the year in which the Committee 3 meet shall be considered by the Committee, if he was eligible for consideration on the first day of (January) of the years or of any of the years immediately preceding the year in which such meeting is held but could not be considered as no meeting of the Committee was held during such preceding year or years].” It appears that the two petitioners had exceeded 54 years of age on the first day of January in the year the Committee met. The petitioners raise a grievance before this Court that the Regulation was framed in the year 1955, in a situation where the age of entry, as well as the age of superannuation from government service, was lower. In that view of the matter, the concerned authorities should adopt an approach which is consistent with the changing times and variation in the service conditions. Learned counsel for the two sets of respondents have opposed the writ petition. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. We are proceeding on the assumption that the age of entering into service, as well as the age of superannuation, for the members of the All India Service has been enhanced since the Regulations were enforced in 1955. The contention may deserve consideration for future cases, and may involve amendment of the Regulations. But it is not possible for 4 this Court to accede to the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners. This court is bound by the laws in force on the relevant date. We are, therefore, are not inclined to interfere in the matter and would prefer to dismiss this writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. This order should not be taken to be an expression of the views of this Court as to the desirability or otherwise of amendment of the Regulations. hr ( S. K. Katriar ) ( Kishore K. Mandal )