Civil Writ Petition No. 6677 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 6677 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.8.2009 Vijay Singh Chauhan ...petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner who joined as a Maths master in the Haryana Education Department was promoted as Lecturer on 20.4.2002. Haryana Staff Selection Commission advertised 167 posts of school Principal on 21.6.2007. The petitioner applied in open category since there was no post reserved for physically handicapped. In the meantime, one Prahlad Singh filed Civil Writ Petition No. 15911 of 2007 making a grievance that no post was reserved for physically handicapped candidate. The said writ petition was disposed of on the submission made by the Advocate General that post could not be reserved for physically handicapped category due to some technical problem. He further stated that the post would be reserved and advertised within a month or so. The application given by the petitioner, however, was treated as having been made in the general category. On 9.11.2007, the Haryana Staff Commission advertised 5 posts of Principal in physically handicapped category. As per this advertisement, the age mentioned for eligibility is 25 to 50 Civil Writ Petition No. 6677 of 2008 2 years. The petitioner's date of birth is 9.11.1957. As per the petitioner, he was 50 years old on the date of advertisement and no cut off date regarding age was mentioned in the said advertisement. To plead his eligibility the petitioner relies upon Rule 5 of School Cadre (Group-B) Service Rules 1998, which reads as under: “ No person shall be appointed to any post in the Service by direct recruitment who is less than 25 years or more than 50 years of age on or before the 1st day of the month preceding the last date of submission of application to the Commission” The petitioner had submitted this application against reserved category of handicap on 20.11.2007. The said application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he is over age. The order in this regard is at Annexure P-8. The personal visit of the petitioner also did not lead to any result and he has now filed this writ petition. Reply has been filed. It is stated that cut off date in the re-advertisement is provided and it is 8.12.2007. It is further stated that the petitioner was 50 years and one month old on the said date and thus would be over age. Respondent would say that the application of the petitioner has been rightly declined. To support his case the counsel for the petitioner would refer to the provisions of Rule 5 as reproduced above. He submits that eligibility date is to be first day of the month preceding the last date of submission of application to the Commission. 8th December being the last date for submission of application, the age is to be ascertained on the first day of the preceding month, which as per the Civil Writ Petition No. 6677 of 2008 3 counsel would be 1st November it being a month preceding December. The State counsel could not say much to rebut the submission. Reading of the rule would tend to support the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. The rule is plainly worded and the words are to be assigned literal meaning. Important word in the rule to be seen is 'preceding'. Dictionary meaning of the word is 'to go before in position, time, rank or importance, to be before in time or place'. Thus 1st day of the month preceding the last date of submission of application i.e. 8th December, 2007, in time and place would be November. Month preceding December would have to be taken as November. It is also required to be seen that the petitioner had earlier applied and this is re-advertisement which has now been issued. The petitioner otherwise was considered eligible in the general category and being a handicap has now applied in this reserve category for which the re-advertisement has been issued. In this background, it would be only fair if the petitioner is given chance of consideration when same would be due to him on the interpretation of the rule, which could govern the determination of the the age for which consideration as per the instructions. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner would be considered eligible and his application would not be rejected on the ground that he is over age. Other aspects of eligibility may be seen by the respondent. The petitioner would be entitled for consideration on merits. August 21, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE