LexPRABHU DAYAL SESMA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
PRABHU DAY AL SESMA
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
AUGUST 28, 1986
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.)
A
B
Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by
Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962-Rule l l B-Age-Determina-
C
lion of-"Must have attained the age of 2 l years and must nor have
attained the age of 28 years" -Interpretation of.
Indian Majority Act, 1875-S. 4-Age-Computation of-How
,,.--
. determined.
\
Indian Administrative -service (Appointment by Competitive
Examination) Regulations, 1955-Rule 4-"must have attained the age
of 21 years and must not have attained the age of 28 years"-Inter-
'
pretation of.
For direct recruitment to the Rajasthan Administrative Service
and allied services of the Government of Rajasthan by a competitive
examination to he held in 1983, the Rajasthan Public Service Commis-
sion 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 1st day of January next folloWing the last date fixed for
receipt of application.
The appellant was allowed to appear in ttie written examination,
but later on he was intimated by the Commission that his candidature
was rejected on the ground that he had attained the age of 28, years on
January 1, 1984 and was therefore ineligible for consideration.
The writ petition filed by the appellant' under Art. 226 was
allowed by a Single Judge holding that if the date of birth of the appel-
lant was January 2, 1956 he would complete the age of 28 years only at
the end of the day of January 1, 1984 and therefore he could not be said
to have attained the age of 28 years on that date.
665
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
666
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
11986] 3 S.C.R.
On appeal by the respondents, a Division ·Bench reversed the
judgment of the Single Judge.
In appeal to this Court, on behalf of the appellant it was con-
tended: {i) that the DMsion Bench erronously introduced the legal con-
cept of the age of majority as laid down in s. 4 of the Indian Majority
Act 1875 for the purpose of interpreting r. 11-B of the Rajasthan State
and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Exami-
nation) Rules 1962 and (ii) that as commonly· understood, a persan
attains a particular age after he had completed a given number of years
and there is no reason why the words of r. 11-B "must have attained the
age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of 28 years" should
not be 'understood in the ordinary sense.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD: l. In the absence of any express provision, while calcu•
lating a person's age, the day of his birth must be counted as a whole
day and he attains the specified age on the day preceding, the anni-
versary of his birthday. One of the well accepted rules for computation
of time is that fractions of a day will be omitted in computing a period of
time in years or months in the sense that a fraction of a day will be
treated as a full day.A legal day commences at 120' dock midnight and
continues until the same hour the following night. This principle is in
conformity withs. 4ofthe Indian Majority Act 1875. [671F-G]
G. Vatsala Rani, P.M.G. Kiniv. Selection Committee for Admis-
sion to Medical Colleges, Bangalore Medical College, Bangalore-2, AIR
1967 Mysore 135, Rex v.Sooffin, LR I 1930] I KB 741 & Shurey, Savory
v. Shurey, LR 11918] I Ch. 263, approved.
Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd edn. vol. 37, para 178 at 100,
relied upon.
·
i. The object and intent in making r. llB of the Rajasthan State
G
& Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examina-
tion) Rules, 1962 was to prescribe the age limits upon which the eligibil-
ity of a candidate for direct recruitment io the Rajasthan Administra-
tive Service and other allied services is governed. The expression "must
not have attained the age of 28 years on the first day of January next
following the last day fixed for receipt of application" in r. llB has to
H
be interpreted by applying the aforesaid principle and not on the basis
PRABHU DAYAL v. STATE [SEN, J.I
667
adopted by UPSC while interpreting r. 4 of the Indian Administrative
Services (Appointment by Competitive Examination) Regulations, f955
framed by the Central Government in pursuance of r. 7 of the IAS
(Recruitment) Rules. 1954. [670A-B]
·
3 .• The last _day fixed for receipt of application in this ca..--e, was
January 1, 1983. First day of JExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.