Ramalingam M. v Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU** ## **THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2014/9TH SRAVANA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 17127 of 2011 (M)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER :** **RAMALINGAM.M., S/O. RAMASWAMY, KUNNATHUPADAM VAYAL HOUSE, NADAKKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS :** **----------------------** **1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, YOGAKSHEMA, JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI-400021, REP. BY ITS, CHAIRMAN.** **2. THE ZONAL MANAGER,** **LIC OF INDIA, SOUTHERN ZONAL OFFICE, CHENNAI-600001.** **3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE-673001.** **R1 R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** ## **WP(C).No. 17127 of 2011 (M)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :** - **P1: COPY OF TH ELETTER ISSUED BY R3 TO THE PEITIONR DT 5/3/2001.** - **P2: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY the LIC OF INDIA BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT N CIVIL APPEALS 953-968/2005.** - **P3: COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN XIVIL APPEALS 953-968/2005 DT 18/1/2001.** - **P4: COPY OF THE GUIDELINES DT 20/5/2011 ISSUED BY THE R1.** - **P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS DT 30/5/2011.** - **P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER TO THE R3 DT 8/6/2011** - **P7: COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE LIST PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENTS.** - **P8: COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAM DAILY DT 20/5/2011.** - **P9: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE R3 SHOWING THE PROOF OF HIS TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT.** - **P10: COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY SRI. FRANCIS SELVEM, THE PETITIOENR IN WPC 16939/2011.** - **P11: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN WPC 16939/2011.** - **P12: COPY OF THE INFORMATION DT 24/9/2013 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :** - **EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. ZD/930/ASP/99 DT 3/8/1999 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, LIC OF INDIA,MUMBAI.** - **EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT 3/6/2011 PRODUCED BY THE PETITIOENR LAONG WITH HIS APPLICATION .** - **EXT.R1(c): COPY OF THE CIRCULAR REF. NO. PER/MPR/CL4/2011 LO31 DT 19/5/2011.** - **EXT.R1(d): COPY OF THE CIRCULAR REF. NO. PER/MPR/CL4/2011-12 LO60 DT 15/6/2011.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **bp** ## **Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.** -------------------------------------------------------------W.P(C)No. 17127 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 31[st] day of July, 2014. ## **JUDGMENT** An employee, having worked on a temporary basis, went on representing his case to his employer seeking permanent employment. Eventually, based on the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the selection process that ensued thereafter, his candidature was rejected on the ground that he had been barred by age. It has thus given rise to the present proceedings. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner initially joined the respondent Corporation (Life Insurance Corporation of India, for short ‘LIC’) as a temporary employee. There has been any amount of dispute with regard to the date on which he actually entered the service of the Corporation. For the time being, it can be stated, based on the pleadings of the petitioner, that the petitioner secured employment on 19.6.2001. Since the sole issue is whether the petitioner completed 35 years by the time he entered the service of the Corporation, it would assume some importance to mention that the petitioner was born on 27.7.1966, and further it is not in dispute. 3. A perusal of the records indicates that many other similarly W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 2 : placed temporary employees of the respondent Corporation have sought confirmation of their services on a permanent basis. Eventually, the issue, at their behest, went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Through Ext.P3 judgment, dated 18.5.2011, the Supreme Court, based on the undertaking given by LIC, directed the respondent Corporation to formulate a scheme for absorption of those temporary employees as a one-time measure. 4. In obedience to the directions of the Supreme Court, the respondent Corporation issued, through Ext.P4 dated 20.5.2011, a scheme of recruiting those temporary employees on a permanent basis. While inviting the applications of the temporary employees, the respondent Corporation has, inter alia, imposed a condition that a person should not have crossed the age prescribed by the corporation for the relevant post as on the date of his or her initial entry into the service. As it could be seen from Ext.R1 (a), dated 3.8.1999, a candidate belonging to SC/ST, to which the petitioner actually belongs, should not have completed the upper age of 35 years by the date of his entry into service. 5. When the petitioner submitted an application to be considered for permanent appointment in terms of the scheme formulated in Ext.P4, he did mention that he had been serving the W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 3 : respondent Corporation since 19.6.2001. Nevertheless, as the petitioner could not produce any substantive proof with regard to the fact that he had been in service from the date he declared in his application, eventually, on scrutiny the respondent authorities rejected his candidature. Under those circumstances, aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. Though the learned counsel on either side has advanced arguments elaborately on various aspects of the case, the main issue that is to be considered is in relation to the age of the petitioner on the date of his initial entry into service. Accordingly, I extract the submissions of the learned counsel for the rival parties to that extent only. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner worked in the respondent Corporation. Since certain basic facts are not disputed by the Corporation, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Ext.P9, which he produced subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, to show that the petitioner entered the service on 08.08.2001. The said certificate, contends the learned counsel, was issued by the Manager (OS), whose competence to issue the certificate has been acknowledged in the recruitment policy of the Corporation itself. W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 4 : Drawing the attention of this Court to the endorsement made at the foot of the document, the learned counsel would submit that a competent officer of the Corporation, on verification of the records, such as dispatch register, recorded that the petitioner had been working in the Corporation since 8.8.2001. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Ext.P10 dated 25.06.2011, which the petitioner obtained by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act. Incidentally, in Ext.P10, which was issued by the Manager (CRM)(DM), another competent authority, as accepted by the respondent Corporation, the date of the petitioner's entry into service was recorded as June, 2002. According to the learned counsel, if Ext.P9 is to be taken as the reckoning point for the commencement of the petitioner's service, it is not in controversy that the petitioner did not complete 35 years by the date of his entry into service. On the other hand, if Ext.P10 is to be taken into account, still it cannot be said that the petitioner, contends the learned counsel, has completed 35 years of age. Elaborating on the said aspect, the learned counsel has submitted that a person is deemed not to have completed 35 years until he attains 36 years of age, or, in other words, celebrates his 36[th] birthday. W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 5 : 8. To bolster his submission that a person is not deemed to have completed 35 years until his 36[th] birthday, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that even the Corporation has interpreted the reckoning of age on the same lines. In that regard, he has placed reliance on Ext.P12, dated 24.9.2013. The learned counsel has accordingly contended that, since the Corporation has consistently provided employment to 17 persons, whose names have been reflected in Ext.P12, there is no justification on its part to subject the petitioner to a discriminatory treatment. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the Corporation has been guilty of shifting stands, inasmuch as Ext.P9 was issued by one of its officials showing 08.06.2001 as the date of his entry into service, whereas Ext.P10, issued by another officer of the Corporation, would reflect June, 2002; yet, Ext.R1(b), another document by the Corporation, would show that the petitioner’s entry could have been in 2003. Latching on to these discrepancies, the learned counsel would submit that the very respondent Corporation is not sure when the petitioner had his initial entry into the Corporation. 10. Accepting that the petitioner has the initial burden of proving the date of his initial entry into service, the learned counsel for W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 6 : the petitioner has stated that the Corporation is the custodian of all the documents, including the one that would reflect the date of entry of the petitioner in to service. In view of the patent discrepancy in the date of the petitioner’s initial entry into service as could be seen from Exts.P9, P10 and R1 (a), he has contended that an adverse inference has to be drawn against the Corporation, for it has failed to conclusively put forward one particular date as the date of the petitioner’s initial entry into service. 11. In further elaboration of his submissions, the learned counsel has also stated that earlier this Court considered the same issue in W.P.(C)No.17984 of 2011. According to him, initially this Court dismissed the writ petition on 16.2.2012, disallowing the plea of the petitioner therein that he had not been barred by age to seek employment on a permanent basis. When a review petition was filed, this Court, however, having taken into account a document similar to Ext.P10, allowed the said review petition holding that the petitioner therein was within the zone of consideration. Expatiating further, the learned counsel would submit that it is the same Ext.P10 as has been relied on in the said writ petition as well. 12. The learned counsel contends that, viewed from either angel, the petitioner has not been barred by age, if this Court takes into W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 7 : account either Ext.P9 or Ext.P10. Eventually, summing up the submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that, at this point of time, the petitioner being 45 years old with no prospect of securing any fresh employment, if he is non-suited based on any technicalities, it would be calamitous for him. According to the learned counsel, having accepted the fact that the petitioner had worked on a temporary basis for a considerable period of time and having provided employment to various other similarly placed persons, the Corporation ought not to have insisted on a mere technicality, to wit, when the petitioner actually completed 35 years. Submitting ad hominem, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that this Court may take into account the pathetic condition of the petitioner, and consider his case sympathetically, without unduly getting bogged down by the technicalities. 13. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has strenuously opposed the contentions of the petitioner. He has initially drawn the attention of this Court to Ext.P4, which contains the scheme of recruitment in terms of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Making a specific reference to Clause 8 therein, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the Corporation has specified the documents that are to be filed by an W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 8 : applicant to have his case considered. Further, drawing the attention of this Court to Ext.P5, the application filed by the petitioner on 19.6.2001 pressing his case for permanent appointment, the learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that the document reflects that 19.6.2001 as the date of initial appointment but it was not supported by any supporting proof. 14. Having taken the trouble of producing the original records, including the application and the accompanying certificates allegedly produced by the petitioner before the authorities in response to Ext.P4 notification, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has tried to demonstrate, based on the application of the petitioner, that the petitioner has also appended to the application a certificate issued by the Manager (OS) Divisional Office dated 3.6.2011 explicitly recording the fact that the petitioner commenced his temporary service in the Corporation only in January, 2003. 15. The learned Standing Counsel has mounted a frontal attack on Ex.P9, which the petitioner produced before this Court through an interlocutory application rather belatedly pending the writ petition. According to the learned Standing Counsel, Ext.P9 contained an extra endorsement at the foot of it, and it was not to be found at the earliest point of time when the petitioner had produced the same W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 9 : certificate along with the application under Ext.P5. The learned Standing Counsel has also stated that the Manager, who appended the footnote to Ext.P9 on 15.10.2012, subsequently within a fortnight retired from service. Thus the learned Standing Counsel has stated that Ext.P9 is the document, especially the endorsement thereof, issued by an officer at the fag end of his career without reference to proper records, and as such, no sanctity could be attached to it. 16. The learned Standing Counsel has also stated that the petitioner has not produced Ext.P9 before the authorities at any point of time, but has produced the same before this Court only in response to the specific plea taken by the Corporation in its counter affidavit. In other words, only to tide over the difficult situation as to the age of the petitioner, the petitioner, as an afterthought, could secure the document pending the writ petition and produce it before this Court. He has strenuously contended that the circumstances under which the petitioner has produced the document rob it of all its vitality and sanctity. 17. Further, addressing the contentions regarding Ext.P10, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that the petitioner, by any reckoning, has completed 35 years of age once we take the date mentioned in Ext.P10 as the date of the petitioner's entry into service. W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 10 : To overcome the specific contention raised by the petitioner that Ext.P10 and Ext.R1(b) record different dates, though admittedly issued by the very officers of the Corporation, the learned Standing Counsel would further contend that Ext.P10 was issued initially in response to the representation of the union, which espoused the cause of the workmen. It was then issued based on the entries in the dispatch register alone. But, later, in the light of the specific guidelines issued in the recruitment policy, the authorities, in terms of the pay certificates and other materials, reviewed the position and verified the information. On such verification Ext.R1(b) was issued. Having explained the circumstances under which both these documents came to be issued, the learned Standing Counsel has further contended that, taking either of those documents – Extz.P10 & R1(b) – to bind the Corporation, still it is evident that the petitioner has been barred by age to seek employment on a permanent basis in terms of the scheme formulated by the respondent Corporation. In support of his submissions, the learned Standing Counsel has relied on **Prabhu Dayal Sesma v. State of Rajasthan and another** (1986 (4) SCC 59) and **Salag Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and another** (2005 (10) SCC 77). 18. The learned standing counsel has also elaborated on the scope of judicial review vis-à-vis the administrative policy of the W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 11 : employer concerning the recruitment. He has strenuously contended that this Court could only look into the decision making process rather than the decision itself. In support of the said well established principle of law, the learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on **Bhubaneshwar Development Authority and another v. Adikanda Biswal and another** (2012 (11) SCC 731). 19. Summing up his submissions, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that Ext.P9 ought to be disbelieved and that, based on either Ext.P10 or Ext.R1(b), the petitioner has still been barred by age, thus falling out of the reckoning of the scheme. Accordingly, he has urged this Court to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits. 20. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Corporation, apart from perusing the record. 21. In the light of the rival submissions made at the bar and on perusal of the material placed before the Court, as well as the respective pleadings, the issues that fall for consideration are (1) whether Ext.P9 has any probative value; and (2) whether the petitioner is barred by age as per Ext.P10, leaving aside Ext.R1(b), the authenticity of which is not without question. W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 12 : 22. As has been initially adverted to, this Court is of the opinion that the facts are not much in dispute, save to the extent when the petitioner has actually secured his initial appointment. If one were to take into account Ext.P9, it could safely be concluded that the petitioner had not crossed 35 years of age by the date of his initial entry. If we reckon Ext.P10, the issue that falls for consideration is the terminal point for reckoning a completed year. Going by Ext.R1(b), on which reliance has been placed by the respondent Corporation, there is no iota of doubt that the petitioner is beyond 35 years by the date of the notification. 23. Initially, regarding the validity of Ext.P9, it is required to be observed that it was issued by a competent authority as has been indicated in the scheme of the Corporation. To that extent, it cannot be disputed. At the same time, this Court cannot be oblivious to the fact as to under what circumstances Ext.P9 has been issued. When the petitioner applied in response to the notification, he did mention a particular date, i.e. 19.6.2001, but could not produce any proof in support thereof. It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that the petitioner produced the same Ext.P9 along with the application, sans the footnote. Incidentally, the application is said to have been submitted, at least going by the date it bears on its W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 13 : face, on 30.5.2011, whereas the certificate of proof of appointment alleged to have been annexed to the application is dated 3.6.2011. According to the learned Standing Counsel, though the application bears an anterior date, it cannot be ruled out that the petitioner submitted it at a later point of time along with the certificate of proof issued by the Manager (OS) after 3.6.2011. According to him, the document has admittedly been issued at the behest of the petitioner. At any rate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently denied that the petitioner submitted any document purportedly issued by the Manager (OS) at the time of submitting Ext.P5 application. 24. Be that as it may, simplistically stated, either the petitioner has produced the document dated 3.6.2011 or he has not at all produced any document along with his application. The fact however remains that the petitioner has gone on record submitting that he has not produced any document along with Ex.P5. In view of the schismatic submissions made on the issue, it is better not to hazard a guess on the correctness of the rival submissions. I take that Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner contained no annexure showing the date of entry. As such, the petitioner’s statement in Ext.P5 application that he entered the service on 19.06.2001 is without any proof. W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 14 : 25. Concerning Ext.P9, having accepted that it was issued by a competent authority, I could see that it was issued only after the dispute arose concerning the date of the petitioner's entry into service. At Column 6, concerning the period of employment of a temporary employee in the Corporation, it has been specifically recorded that the petitioner entered into service with effect from 4.1.2003. The document was admittedly issued on 3.6.2011. However, at the foot of that document, it has been stated in manuscript, purportedly by the same Manager (OS), that the petitioner had been working since 8.8.2001 and that it was based on the verification of the dispatch register. Though the date under the signature of the officer to the footnote is not clear, both the counsel have agreed that it is ‘15.10.2012’. It is further not in dispute that the very officer who issued the document retired from service within a fortnight thereafter. No explanation has been forthcoming from the petitioner under what circumstances the footnote was appended on 15.10.2012 to the document which had originally been issued on 3.6.2011, more pertinently after more than a year. As has been rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, Ext.P9 has not seen the light of the day at the earliest point of time. In fact, it is the document which was brought into existence subsequent to the filing of the suit, i.e., after the W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 15 : very controversy has arisen. According to the learned Standing Counsel, since it was produced much later in point of time, the Corporation had no opportunity to counter the said document at any point of time. 26. Thus, having examined Ext.P9 and the peculiar circumstances under which it has been brought into existence, this Court does not have any hesitation to hold that it is not the document that can safely be relied on for the purpose of determining the age of the petitioner in relation to his initial entry into service. 27. Now it is appropriate to examine the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, taking Ext.P10 in to reckoning, still it could not be said that the petitioner had not been barred by age by the time of his entry into service. The learned counsel contended that any particular year of a person's age should be treated as completed, only when he reached the terminus of the next year. Expatiating on the said submission, the learned counsel would contend that the petitioner was born on 27.8.1966 and he should be treated to have completed 35 years only on 26.8.2002. Taking that as the correct calculus, the petitioner, according to the learned Counsel, legitimately hoped that his application would be considered. W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 16 : 28. It is noteworthy that the learned counsel, as an alternative submission, has also stated that it is, in fact, the very method of calculation adopted by the respondent Corporation to determine whether a person has completed 35 years of age by the date of the notification. Indeed, Ext.P12 contains the particulars of 17 persons who have been appointed on a permanent basis. A perusal of the said exhibit amply demonstrates that all of them completed 35 years, but still did not reach 36 years of their age. In response to that, too, the learned Standing Counsel has elaborately pleaded in the counter affidavit under what circumstances the appointments as per Ext.P12 came to be made. Thus, this Court may have to address that collateral aspect as has been raised qua Ext.P12. 29. The learned Standing Counsel has been fair enough in admitting that the respondent Corporation did make a mistake in reckoning the age of those persons at the time of providing them permanent employment. He has further stated that, having realized the mistake, the Corporation has kept those appointments undisturbed in view of the passage of considerable time. He has, however, contended that a mistake, if at all committed by the respondent Corporation, cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner and he cannot insist that the same mistake has to be perpetrated or perpetuated in the name of W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 17 : parity. 30. Be that as it may, it is very evident that there are appointments of candidates who have completed 35 years of age, going by Ext.P12. Before addressing the issue as to what could be called the parity of treatment in the negative, it is appropriate for this Court to consider the plea of the petitioner concerning Ext.P10 to see whether the petitioner has actually completed 35 years of age by then. In that regard, the issue is no longer res integra since the Apex Court has, on more than one occasion, considered the issue, though in a different context. 31. In **Eerati Laxman v. State of A.P.,** (2009) 3 SCC 337, one of the grounds taken by the appellant during trial was that he was a juvenile by the date of commission of offence, within the meaning of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. Indisputably, the date of birth of the appellant is 10-5-1978. The question that has arisen for consideration is whether the appellant completed the age of 16 years on 09-05-1994. When the trial court rejected the plea of the accused, the matter was taken in appeal. The appellate court has held that a year is treated as completed on 9[th] May, if the date of birth of a person is 10th May of the preceding year. It reasoned out that in the case of reckoning a calendar year which starts with 1[st] January of a particular W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 18 : year, a year is completed on 31[st] December of the same year, but not 1[st] January of the next year, which is beyond one year. So, by 10-51994, the accused would start 17th year of his life and on 09-05-1994, it shall be reckoned that he completed 16 years of his life, if his date of birth is 10-5-1978. In support thereof, the appellate court has placed reliance on section 3 (35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which defines ‘month’ as a month reckoned according to the British calendar. ‘Year’ is defined under Section 3 (66) of the same Act as ‘a year reckoned according to the British calendar’. Eventually, when the matter reached the Apex Court, it has affirmed the said finding. 32. It is pertinent to examine, in this context, Section 3 of the Majority Act, 1875, which is taken aid of in **Eerati Laxman** (supra), and which provides the criteria for computation of age of majority of persons domiciled in India. It reads as under: “3. Age of majority of persons domiciled in India.—(1) Every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on his completing the age of eighteen years and not before. (2) In computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day and he shall be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day.” (emphasis supplied) 33. It may further be seen that under identical circumstances, a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 19 : ## in **Umesh Chandra Jaiswal v. The State of UP, through Secretary** , [(2007) ILR 3 All 1043], has held as follows: “3. We do not find any force in the submission for the reason that under the Rules the maximum age for appointment in the State Government Services is 35 years for general category candidates. The cut-off date is 01.07.2006. Relaxation by 5 years is admissible to the candidates belonging to reserve category i.e. S.C., S.T. and O.B.C. Since the petitioner belongs to O.B.C. category, therefore, even if benefit of 5 years is given to him he was overaged by one day on 01.07.2006. A person completes the year on the day preceding his date of birth. In the present case, the date of birth of the petitioner being 01.07.1966, he completed 35+5 years i.e. 40 years of age on 30.06.2006. The submission that he would complete 40 years of age on 01.07.2006 has no merit and based on misconception.” 34.In fact, the learned Division Bench, while arriving at the above conclusion, has placed reliance on an English decision in Re Shurey Savory v. Shurey [(1918) 1 Ch. 263] where the question came up for consideration was whether a person attained a specified age in law on the anniversary of his or her birthday or on the day preceding that day. It is held that law does not take cognizance of part of a day and the consequence is that person attains required age on the day preceding the anniversary of his birthday. The same view is taken in another English case in Rex v. Scoffin, (1930) 1 KB 741). ## 35. In **Prabhu Dayal Sesma v. State of Rajasthan,** **(1986) 4 SCC 59,** put very briefly, the facts are that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission invited applications for direct recruitment to W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 20 : the Rajasthan Administrative Service and Allied Services of the Government of Rajasthan by a competitive examination to be held in 1983. Under the directions issued by the Commission, the minimum age prescribed for candidates was 21 years and the maximum, 28 years. It was prescribed that the candidate should have attained the age of 21 years on January 1, 1984 and should not have attained the age of 28 years i.e. on the first day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of application. The appellant was allowed to appear in the written examination, but later was declared ineligible. A learned Single Judge has held that if the date of birth of the appellant was January 2, 1956, he would complete the age of 28 years only at the end of the day on January 1, 1984, and therefore, he could not be said to have attained the age of 28 years on that date. He accordingly held that the Commission was not justified in rejecting the candidature of the appellant. On appeal, a learned Division Bench disagreed with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge and reversed the judgment. 36. Under those circumstances the matter reached the Apex Court, which, after referring to various English and Indian judgements, held as follows: (para 14) “[T]he section embodies that in computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day and he must be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 21 : eighteenth anniversary of that day. As already stated, a legal day commences at 12 o’clock midnight and continues until the same hour the following night. It would therefore appear that the appellant having been born on January 2, 1956, he had not only attained the age of 28 years but also completed the same at 12 o’clock on the midnight of January 1, 1984. On the next day i.e. on January 2, 1984, the appellant would be one day more than 28 years. The learned Judges were therefore right in holding that the appellant was disqualified for direct recruitment to the Rajasthan Administrative Service and as such was not entitled to appear at the examination held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in 1983...” 37. Incidentally, their Lordships commiserated with the appellant, who stood barred by age by just one day, and gave directions to the authorities concerned to consider the question of relaxing the upper age limit in the case of the appellant in order to mitigate the hardship, if it is otherwise permissible. 38. Having stated thus, putting the whole issue in perspective, I observe that the petitioner did serve the Corporation for a considerable period of time, and he did make an application in response to the notification issued by the Corporation in the light of the direction issued by the Apex Court in Ext.P3. He has met all the other criteria, except fulfilling the norm of age. Erroneous though, the Corporation has misled itself in determining the age of the employees in Ext.P12 treating them as within the zone of consideration, though they were past the permissible age. This Court is very much conscious of the fact that an illegality cannot be perpetuated in the name of parity of W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 22 : treatment, even with the aid of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 39. Admittedly, now the petitioner is 45 years old without having any prospect of securing fresh employment. He has all long been hoping to secure employment having regard to his past service. He is getting non-suited on a technicality of having been barred by age by a few months, which is really heart-burning, to borrow the phrase from **Prabhu Dayal Sesma** (supra). Coupled with that, in view of the entire circumstances, there have been instances where the Corporation has provided employment to such similarly placed employees, on a miscalculation though. This Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner ought to be considered by the respondent Corporation sympathetically, especially taking into account Ext.P12. I am bolstered in my view especially based on the direction given by the Apex Court in **Prabhu Dayal Sesma** 's case (supra). 40. Accordingly, this Court, having not found much merit in the case of the petitioner, holds that in terms of Ext.P10, the petitioner was barred by age by the date of his initial entry into service. Accordingly, the action of the respondent Corporation cannot be found fault with. This Court, however, further directs the competent authority among the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically in terms of the ratio laid down in **Prabhu Dayal** W.P.(C) No. 17127/2011 : 23 : **Sesma** (supra). With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No order to as to costs. **sd/- Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge.** sl.