ORDER
Dipak Misra, J.
1. The petitioner, a Post Graduate in Botany from A.P.S. University, Rewa, was serving in a Central Reserve Police Force as Assistant Sub Inspector and at the time of filing the original application before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’) had put in seven years of service in Central Reserve Police Force. The Director General of Police, Bhopal, the respondent No. 2 herein, had invited applications for various categories of post like Subedar, Sub Inspector and Platoon Commander. The last date for submission of the application was 30-6-98. The notification inviting applications envisaged relaxation of age for such candidates who were serving in the State Government or Central Government. The relaxation of age was upto 36 years of age and, therefore, the petitioner was eligible to apply for the post. Being a Government employee the petitioner was required to submit no objection certificate from the Commandant which he submitted. The application submit- ted by the petitioner was complete in all respects and he was directed to go for the physical test which was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhopal and in the said test he found fit. According to the writ petitioner his height was 77 cms., Chest was 86 cms. and on expansion it was 94 cms. The petitioner was allotted a roll number for the purpose of written examination and accordingly he appeared in the written examination. The result of the successful candidate was notified in daily newspaper ‘Dainik Bhaskar’ and the roll number which was allotted to the petitioner 621145 and it was found in the list of successful candidates. He was issued call letter for physical examination on 29-11 -98 and in the said examination he secured 79 marks and was declared successful. Thereafter, he was called for personal interview on 30-11-98. At the time of interview he submitted all his testimonials for verification. It is urged that the petitioner had performed well in all the tests but eventually his name did not appear in the list of selected candidates. This compelled the petitioner to go to the Police Headquarters for obtaining the mark-sheet and he was told that the mark-sheet was yet to be prepared. As pleaded, he met the AIG (Selection) who verified from the original record and informed him that he secured 231 marks whereas the last candidate had obtained 216 marks. He was further informed that he was not selected as he was aged 30 years and the relaxation of age was not available to the Central Government employees. Being dissatisfied he submitted a representation on 1-1-99 but nothing fruitful ensued. In this backdrop a prayer has been made to issue a command to the respondent No. 2 to include the name of the petitioner in the Selection List and issue an order of appointment for the post of Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander pursuant to the advertisement contained in Annexure A-l. In addition, a prayer has also been made to declare that the petitioner is entitled for relaxation being a Central Government employee.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that the relevant recruitment rules which are applicable in the case of Subedar/Platoon Commander/Sub Inspectors are M.P. Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1977 (for brevity ‘the Rules’) and the Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules stipulates conditions of eligibility of the candidates for direct recruitment. It is putforth that the said rule does not envisage any kind of age relaxation in respect of candidates for direct recruitment who are engaged in Central Government services. It is submitted that the form of the petitioner was accepted due to oversight though the petitioner could not have been permitted to appear in the examination being more than 28 years of age. It is highlighted that when it was discovered that the benefit of age relaxation has been erroneously extended to the petitioner his name was deleted from the list in question.
3. I have heard Mr. Praveen Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate for the State.
4. Assailing the action of the respondents it is submitted by Mr. Praveen Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that certain categories of posts were advertised as per Annexure A-l and there was a postulate relating to relaxation of age under Clause 5 and hence, the benefit could not be denied to the petitioner being a Central Government employee. It is contended by him that the advertisement should be the guiding factor and when the petitioner had applied in pursuance of the advertisement it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to honour and respect the conditions mentioned in the advertisement and not to take the somersault by placing reliance on the Rules.
5. Mr. Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate countering the aforesaid submissions contended that when there is a set of rules and same do not cover the Central Government employee, the advertisement can not run counter to the same and hence, the benefit prayed for by the petitioner is not allowable.
6. At the very beginning it is condign to state that there is no dispute with regard to the facts. Clause 5 of the advertisement deals with the relaxation of age. The said relaxation refers to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other backward class employees of the State Government whether they arc permanent or temporary or employees of the State owned corporation. The employees of the Central Government are included and the employees of other States are excluded.
7. At this juncture it is seemly to reproduce Rule 8 of the Rules as that has been pressed into service :-
“8. Conditions of eligibility of candidates for direct recruitment.- In order to be eligible for competing in the examination a candidate shall have to satisfy the following conditions, namely:-
Age- (a) He must have attained the age as specified in column
(4) of Schedule III and not attained the age as specified in column
(5) of the said Schedule, on the first day of January next following the date of commencement of the examination.
(b) The upper age limit shall be relaxable upto a maximum of 5 years if a candidate belongs to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class.
(c) The upper age limit will also be relaxable in respect of candidates who are have been employees of the Madhya Pradesh Government, to the extent and subject to the conditions specified below:-
(i) A candidate who is a permanent Government servant should not be more than 36 years of age.
(ii) A candidate holding a post temporarily and applying for another post should not be more than 36 years of age. This concession shall also be admissible to the contingency paid employees, work-charged employees and employees working in the Project Implementation Committee.
(iii) A candidate, who is retrenched Government servant shall be allowed to deduct from his age the period of all temporary service previously rendered by him upto a maximum limit of 7 years even if it represents more than one spell provided that the resultant age does not exceed the upper age limit by more than three years.
Explanation :- The term “retrenched Government servant” denotes a person who was in temporary Government service of this State or of any of the constituent units, for a continuous period of not less than six months and who was discharged because of reduction in the number of employees not more than three years prior to the date of his registration at the Employment Exchange or of application made otherwise for employment in Government service.
(iv) A candidate who is an Ex-Serviceman shall be allowed to deduct from his age the period of all defence service previously rendered by him provided that the resultant age does not exceed the upper age limit by more than three years.
Explanation :- The term “Ex-Serviceman” denotes a person who belongs to any of the following categories and who was employed under the Government of India for a continuous period of not less than six months and who was retrenched or declared surplus as a result of the recommendation of the economy Unit or due to normal reduction in the number of employees not more than three years before the date of his registration at any employment exchange or of application made otherwise for employment in Government service :-
(1) Ex-serviceman released under mustering out concession.
(2) Ex-Serviceman recruited for the second time and discharged on:-
(a) completion of short-term engagement;
(b) fulfilling the conditions of enrolment;
(3) Officers (Military and Civil) discharged on completion of their contract (including Short service regular commissioned officers);
(4) Officers discharged after working for more than six months continuously against leave vacancies;
(d) The general upper age limit shall be relaxable up to 35 years in respect of widow, destitutes or divorced women candidates;
(e) The upper age limit shall also be relaxed upto two years in respect of green card holder candidates under the Family Welfare Programme;
(f) The General upper age limit shall be relaxed Upto 5 years in respect of awarded superior caste partner of a couple under the inter caste marriage incentive programme of the Tribal, Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes Welfare Department;
(g) The upper age limit shall also be relaxable upto 5 years in respect of “Vikram Award” holder candidates;
(h) The upper age limit shall be relaxable upto a maximum of 36 years of age in respect of candidate who are employees of Madhy a Pradesh State Corporation/Board.
(1) The upper age limit shall be relaxed in the case of voluntary Home Guards and non-commissioned Officers of Home Guards for the period of service rendered so by them subject to the limit of 8 years but in no case their age should exceed 36 years.
Note: (1) Candidates who are admitted to the selection under the age concessions mentioned in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (c) above shall not be eligible for appointment if after submitting the application they resign from service either before or after the selection. They will however, continue to be eligible if they are retrenched from the service or post after submitting the application.
(2) In no other case these age limits be relaxed, Departmental candidates must obtain previous permission of their appointing authority to appear for the selection.”
8. The main thrust of the matter is whether the advertisement would prevail in a case of this nature or the Rules would govern. On a perusal of the Rules it is quite vivid that the concept of relaxation is applicable to many categories but does not include the Central Government employees. Once the set of rules are in vogue in regard to relaxation of age the advertisement can not travel beyond the Rules. The purpose of relaxation is discernible from the Rules. If Rule 8 is scanned in entirety, it is demonstrable that it covers and encompasses certain categories of employees under the Government of India but it is not a general benefit which is to be given. That apart, Note (2) categorically and unambiguously postulates that in no other cases these age limits be relaxed. The Rules being imperative are to be followed. The advertisement, as contended by Mr. Dubey, is a supplement to the Rules and, therefore, has to be followed by the respondents does not stand to reason inasmuch as the said condition in the advertisement runs counter to the Rules. As submitted by Mr. Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate it was an inadvertent error and, therefore, the case of the petitioner was not considered. In my considered opinion, the submission of Mr. Agnihotri has substantial force inasmuch as the advertisement can not supplant the Rules. It runs counter to the rules. The Rules when studied with deeper scrutiny and appreciated under the lens of purposiveness and positive stipulation, the relaxation as has been mentioned in the Rules can not be regarded as of general nature. Even if the advertisement is accepted to be correct it has to be read in consonance with the Rules since the Rule also deals with certain kind of surplus employees of Government of India. Hence, by no stretch of imagination it can be regarded or treated to cover a category of employees of the Central Government. The advertisement has to be read in consonance with the Rules even it is regarded to be correct. It is settled law that once Government frames rules under proviso to Article 309, it must strictly follow the same. In this context, I may refer with profit to a two-Judge Bench decision rendered in the case of A.K. Bhatnagar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 544, wherein Their Lordships expressed the view as under :-
“13. On more than one occasion this Court has indicated to the Union and the State Governments that once they frame rules, their action in respect of matters covered by rules should be regulated by the Rules. The Rules framed in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are solemn rules having binding effect. Acting in a manner contrary to the Rules does not create problem and dislocation. Very often Government themselves get trapped on account of their own mistakes or actions in excess of what is provided in the Rules. We take serious view of these lapses and hope and trust that the Government both at the Centre and in the States would take note of this position and refrain from acting in a manner not contemplated by their own rules……”
9. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement the contentions raised by Mr. Praveen Dubey, do not appear to be sound and accordingly I have no hesitation in repelling the same.
10. Resultantly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed without any order as to costs.