Holding

The word 'selection' in Rule 5 must be construed to mean the entire selection process, so the age eligibility is fixed as of 1 July of the year of selection, not the date the select list is prepared.

Summary

The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission advertised a combined examination in 1983 for Grade‑I services, specifying that candidates for Deputy Superintendent of Police must be at least 21 years old on 1 July 1983. The respondent, B. Sarat Chandra, was 19 days short of this age and was therefore not considered for that post, though he was selected for another post. He later challenged the age requirement before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, arguing that the relevant date for age eligibility should be the date the selection list was prepared, not the earlier July date. The Tribunal accepted this argument and directed the government to appoint him as Deputy Superintendent of Police. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the term "selection" in Rule 5 of the A.P. Police Service Rules refers to the entire selection process, not merely the preparation of the final list, and therefore the age cut‑off must be fixed as of 1 July of the year of selection. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the term 'selection' in Rule 5 of the A.P. Police Service Rules, 1966 refers only to the preparation of the final select list or to the whole selection process.
Whether the minimum age of 21 years for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police should be determined as of 1 July of the year in which the selection is made rather than the date of preparation of the select list.

Subjects

age eligibilitypublic service commissionselection processinterpretation of service rulesappointmentadministrative tribunaldeputy superintendent of police

Judgment

A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
A
& ANR;- --- -----
v. -----~-
B. SARAT CHANDRA & ORS.-

· APRIL 10, 1990
B
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.) ..
Civil Services: A.P. Police Service Rules, 1966: Rule 5-Kecruit-
ment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police-Eligibility for-
Fixation of minimum age of 21 years as on first day ofJuly of the yearof
selection-Validity of.
•C
. Rule S of the A.P. Police Service Rules, 1966 makes a person
ineligible for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police unless he
has completed the age of 21 years on the first day of July of the year in
which the selection is made.
D
The appellant Service Commission notified on-August 25, 1983 a ·
combined examination for Grade I Services of the State, to be held in ·
November, 1983 wherein the minimum age prescribed for selection to
the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was 21 years as on July 1,-
1983 as against 18 years for other posts.
E
, The respondeJlt who was 19 days short of 21 years as on July I,
1983 was not considered for appointment to the post or Deputy
Superintendent of Police. He was, however, selected as Deputy Regis-
trar of Cooperative Societies. He filed a petition before the State
Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the appellant to select
him to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, rontending that the F
date for attaining the minimum age prescribed under the notification
was contrary to Rule S of the Police Service Rules in as much as it ought
to be the date of preparation of the list of selected candidates and not
_).. any date anterior to it. The Tribunal accepted that Contention.

· Allowing the appeal by the Service Commission, the Court, G

HELD: The word 'selectioi:i' occurring in Rule S of the A.P. Police.
Service Rules, 1966 cannot be construed only as the factum of prepara-
tion of the selecUist. [467B) ----

The process of selection which begins with the issuance of H

463
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.

advertisement and continues through scrutiny of applications, rejection
A
of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, con·
ducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce, ends with
preparation of the select list for appointment. Rule 3 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Public Service Commission is. also indicative of all
these steps. When such were the different su;ps in the process of selec-
B !ion, the minimum or maximum age for .suitability of a candidate for '
appointment cannot be allowed to ·depend upon any fluctuating or
uncertain date. If the final stage of selection is delayed, and more otlen
it happens for various reasons, the candidates who are eligible on the
date of application may find themselves eliminated at the final stage
for no fault of theirs. The date to attain the minimum or maximum
age must, therefore, be specific and determinate as on a particular
c date for candidates to apply and for recruiting agency to scrutinise
applications. [466F-467 A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1147
of 1990.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.1989 of the A.P.
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in Representation Petition No.
3843 of 1989.

T.V.S.N. Chari, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao and Ms. Manjula Gupta for
•
E the Appellants.

K. Madhava Reddy, D.R.K. Reddy, Vimal Dave, B. Rajeshwar
Rao and Mudu Vijai for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This is an appeal by the A.P.
Public Service Commission against the decision of the A.P. __.
Administrative Tribunal dated September 22, 1989. The appeal raises
a question as to the scope of Rule 5 of the A.P. Police Service Rules,
1966.
G
The facts are not in dispute·and may be stated as follows: The
Public Service Commission issued an Advertisement/Notification No ..
18/1983 inviting applications for selection in a Combined Competitive ~
Examination to be held in November, 1983 at Anantapur, Guntur,
Hyderabad, Kakinalla, Tirupathi, Visakhapatnarn and Warangal
H Centres for recruitment to the posts included in Grade-I Services. The
.
A.P. P.S.C. v. B.S. CHANDRA [SHEITY, J.]
/
465

Notification was published in the Gazette dated August 25, 1983. The A
post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was one of the posts for which
applications were invited. The respondent applied to that post as well
as to other posts. The minimum age prescribed for selection to the post
of Deputy Superintendent of Police was 21 years as on July 1, 1983, as
against 18 years for other posts. The respondent did not complete 21
B
years as on July 1, 1983. He was short by 19 days and his case, there-
fore, was not considered tor appointment to post of Deputy Superinten-
dent of Police. He was, however, considered to other posts since it was
a combined selection for Grade-I Services.

In 1984, the Public Service Commission conducted preliminary
examination for the eligible candidates. In 1985, final examination was c
conducted. In 1986, the candidates were called for interview. On 27
March 1987, the list of selected candidates was prepared for appoint-
ment to different categories of posts. The respondent was selected as
·----......._
Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
D
On 15 April 1989 i.e. about two years after the selection, the
respondent approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal
contending inter a/ia that the date 'for attaining the minimum age pre-
scribed under the Notification was contrary to Rule 5 of the A.P.
Police Service Rules, 1966. He claimed that such date ought to be the
date of preparation of the list of selected candidates and not any date
E
anterior to it. He accordingly sought a direction to the Public Service
Commission to select him to the post of Deputy Superintendent of
Police since he had satisfied the required minimum age of 21 years as
on the date of the select list. The Tribunal has accepted that conten-
, tion and issued a direction to the State Government to create an addi-
tional post as a special case and appoint the respondent as Deputy
F
Superintendent of Police, if necessary by reducing the number of posts
for recruitment for the next year.

The decision of the Tribunal has been challenged in this appeal
by the Public Service Commission since the view expressed therein is
likely to affect the appointment of a large number of candidates.
G
There is no dispute that the eligibility of a candidate as to age for
appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police should be deter-
mined according to Rule 5 of the A.P. Police Service Rules. It is,
r therefore, necessary to look first at that Rule. Rule 5 so far as is
relevant provides: H
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 2 S.C.R.

"Rule 5. Qualifications-(A) No person shall be eligible
A
for appointment as a Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Category-2 by direct recruitment unless he-

(i) has completed the age of 21 years and had not comp-
leted the age of 26 years on the first day of July of the year
B in which the selection is made.

xxx xxx xxx"

The Rule prescribes the minimum as well as the maximum age
for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police. Minimum age is
,..
21 years. The candid.tle must have completed 21 years on the first day
c of July of the year in which the selection is made. He should not have
also completed 26 years as on that day. The Tribunal while construing
this Rule has observed:

"According to the procedure the process of selection
D begins with the issue of the advertisement and culminates
in forwarding the list to the appointing authority. The ess-
ence of the process lies in the preparation of the list. A
selection can be said to have been done only when the list is
prepared. In this view the eligibility of the candidates as to
age has to be determined at this stage."
___J
E
If the word 'selection' is understood in a sense meaning thereby only
the final act of selecting candidates with preparation of the list for
appointment, then the conclusion of the .Tribunal may not be
unjustified. But round phrases cannot give square answers. Before
accepting .that meaning, we must see the consequences, anomalies and Ill
F uncertainties that it may lead to. The Tribunal in fact does not dispute
that the process of selection begins with the issuance of advertisement
and ends with the preparation of select list for appointment. Indeed, it 4
consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applica-
tions, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible
candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva-
G voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment.
Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Public Service Commission is
also indicative of all these steps. When such are the different steps in
the process of selection, the minimum or maximum age for suitability
of a candidate for appointment cannot be allowed to depend upon any -,.
fluctuating or uncertain date. If the final stage of selection is delayed
H and more often it happens for various reasons, the candidates who are
A.P. P.S.C. v. B.S. CHANDRA (SHETfY, J.] 467

eligible on the date of application may find themselves eliminated at A
the final stage for no fault of theirs. The date to attain the minimum or
maximum age must, therefore, be specific, and determinate as on a
particular date for candidates to apply and for recruiting agency to
scrutinise applications. It would be, therefore, unreasonable to con-
strue the word selection only as the factum of preparation of the select
B
list. Nothing so bad would have been intended by the Rule making
authority.

'( The appeal therefore, is allowed setting aside the order of the
Tribunal.

In the circumstances of the case, however, we make no order as C
to costs.

P.S.S. Appeal allowed.
·~.

r