( 1 ) THE petitioner, who was already serving the State Government as an Instructor in the Regional Family Planning Training Centre, Basavangudi, bangalore, applied for selection to the post of technical Officer, student Health Education Unit, advertised by the 1st respondent, the mysore Public Service Commission, in its notification dated 27th June 1968. He was at that time 31 years of age. His application was not considered by the 1st respondent for the reason that his age was more than the maximum prescribed for the post under the relevant rules, viz. , The mysore Public Health Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1960. Under the said rules, the prescription regarding age is-"not more than 35 years for persons belonging to the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes and 30 years in the case of others". The petitioner does not belong either to any Scheduled Caste or to any scheduled Tribe. His contention is that he is entitled to the benefit of the enhancement granted by the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the mysore State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957, and that the 1st Respondent has illegally denied to him the benefit thereof by mis-interpreting the same. ( 2 ) IN the first instance, he had impleaded only the 1st respondent. Subsequently, one H. S. Susheela, who was selected for the same post by the 1st respondent and later appointed thereto, and the State of Mysore were impleaded as respondents 2 and 3 respectively. ( 3 ) THE only question is one of proper interpretation of the 6th Rule of the General Recruitment Rules, 1957. The said rule as amended reads as follows:"6. ( 3 ) THE only question is one of proper interpretation of the 6th Rule of the General Recruitment Rules, 1957. The said rule as amended reads as follows:"6. Age limits for appointment.- (1) Save as otherwise provided in the rules of recruitment specially made and applicable in respect of any post, every candidate for appointment to the State civil Service by direct recruitment must have attained the age of eighteen and not attained the age of- thirty-three in the case of a person belonging to any of the Scheduled caste or Scheduled Tribes, twenty-eight in the case of any other person on the last date fixed for the receipt of applications or on such other date as may be specified by the appointing authority in respect of any posts or classes of posts: provided that when recruitment to any service is by examination or selection, any Government servant who on the aforesaid date is holding an appointment substantively or has been in continuous government service for a period of not less than one year, and has not attained the age of 40 years in the case of candidates belonging to scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and 35 years in the case of others, or such upper age limit as may be specified in the rules of recruitment applicable to the post, shall also be eligible for appointment. (2) Where a maximum age limit other than the age limit specified in sub-rule (1) is fixed for recruitment to any post in the rules of recruitment applicable to any such posts, then such age limits shall in the case of a candidate belonging to any Scheduled Caste or Scheduled tribe be deemed to have been enhanced by five years. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) and (2), any order made by the State Government in consultation with the public Service Commission before the date of commencement of these rules relaxing the qualification of any person in respect of his age for the purpose of recruitment to any service or post shall continue to be in force and be applicable to such person till the 1st day of Jan. 1959. 1959. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the maximum age limit for appointment shall be deemed to be enhanced in the following to the extent mentioned, namely- (a) in the case of a candidate for appointment to a Class IV post on the personal establishment of Ministers and Deputy Ministers, by five years, provided that such appointment will be only for the duration of the term of office of the Minister or Deputy Minister; (b) in the case of a candidate who is or was holding temporally a post under the Government, or holding a post under a local' authority, by the number of years he is or was holding such post; (c) In the case of a candidate who is an ex-serviceman discharged from service by reason of demobilisation, retrenchment or retirement, by the number of years of military service rendered by him. Explanation.-Military service means service rendered by a person in any of the Units of the three Defence Services of India, namely, the Army, Navy and the Air Force or under Military Munitions or stores Authorities or in a Factory notified under Section 4 (1) of the national Services (Technical Personnel) Ordinance II of 1940, or in the Territorial Army as embodied personnel and permanent staff, and includes any period during which the person was under training. (c1) in the case of a candidate who has been released from the national Cadet Corps after service as whole time Cadet Instructor, by the number of years of service rendered by him as such Cadet instructor. (d) in the case of a candidate who is or was a Village Group instructor appointed by a Rural Industralisation Scheme sponsored by the State Government, by the number of years of his service as such Village Group Inspector. " ( 4 ) THE interpretation of the proviso, according to the 1st respondent, is that the relaxation of age limit prescribed by the main paragraph of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 is available or may be availed of, only if the special rules prescribe the same ages as are prescribed by the main paragraph of the said sub-rule, viz. , 33 years for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes and 28 years for others. ( 5 ) MR. SANTHOSH Hegde for the petitioner contends that such an interpretation is not correct. Mr. Muralidhar Rao for the 2nd respondent supports the said interpretation. , 33 years for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes and 28 years for others. ( 5 ) MR. SANTHOSH Hegde for the petitioner contends that such an interpretation is not correct. Mr. Muralidhar Rao for the 2nd respondent supports the said interpretation. ( 6 ) MR. Muralidhar Rao's argument is that the opening words of rule 6 (1), viz. , "save as otherwise provided in the rules of recruitment specially made and applicable in respect of any post", totally remove the application of the entire sub-rule inclusive of the proviso when any special recruitment rule provides otherwise, i. e. , prescribes ages different from those prescribed by sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the General Recruitment rules. He also cites a recent ruling by us rendered on 2nd July, 1970 in Writ Petition No. 4538 of 1968. ( 7 ) THE first argument is sought to be supported by Mr. Muralidhar rao on the proposition that a proviso is an exception to the main rule to which it is appended, that both the main rule and the proviso deal with the same topic and that therefore, if the main rule does not apply, the proviso also cannot apply. He cites the following passage from tha ruling of the Supreme Court in Ram Narain Sons Ltd. v. Assistant Sales tax Commissioner, AIR 1955 SC 765 :"it is a cardinal rule of interpretation that a proviso to a particular provision of a statute only embraces the field which is covered by the main provision. It carves out an exception to the main provision to which it has been enacted as a proviso and to no other. " (See Paragraph 10 of the judgment at page 769 of the Report.) mr. Santhosh Hegde, on the other side, cites another ruling of the Supreme court in Board of Revenue, Madras v. R. S. Jhaver, AIR 1968 SC 59 . In the said case the Supreme Court, after considering the last mentioned decision as well as other cases, observed that-"in exceptional circumstances a proviso may not be really a proviso in the accepted sense but may be a substantive provision itself. "their Lordships of the Supreme Court also cited a passage from a previous decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nandlal bhandari, ILR 1963 MP. "their Lordships of the Supreme Court also cited a passage from a previous decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nandlal bhandari, ILR 1963 MP. 376, which runs as follows:"though ordinarily a proviso restricts rather than enlarges the meaning of the provision to which it is appended, at times the legislature embodies a substantive provision in a proviso. The question whether a proviso is by way of an exception or a condition to the substantive provision, or whether it is in itself a substantive provision, must be determined on the substance of the proviso and not its form. " ( 8 ) APPLYING these principles, the question for consideration is whether the prvoiso appended to sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the General Recruitment rules is only a proviso in the ordinary sense or it should be regarded as an independent provision. For this purpose, we have to examine the entire scheme of the rule. We may leave out of account sub-rule (3) because it deals with a position which came to an end on 1st January 1959. For the rest, the general scheme is, first, to provide a general limit with an enhancement of five years in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes and then to provide for an enhancement in the case of persons who have already been in continuous Government service for not less than one year and a similar enhancement in the case of personnel already holding specified posts under the Government or in Military service or in the service of a local authority. Actually, therefore, there are three main parts of the rule- (1) the general provision with an enhancement in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, (2) an enhancement in the case of persons who have been in the service of the state Govt. continuously for not less than one year and (3) an enhancement in the case of certain other specified services. Viewed in this light, there appears little doubt that the proviso to sub-rule (1) is an independent provision constituting the second part of the general scheme under the rule. That it is so is further reinforced by the last portion of the proviso reading-"or such upper age limit as may be specified, in the rules of recruitment applicable to the post. . . . That it is so is further reinforced by the last portion of the proviso reading-"or such upper age limit as may be specified, in the rules of recruitment applicable to the post. . . . "when the proviso refers to special rules and gives the benefit of upper age limit, if any, specified in the special rules, the use of the comparative indicates that in the absence of a specification of an upper age limit in the special rules, the enhancement conferred by the proviso must apply. The same result also flows from the fact that the wording of the proviso is that in certain specified cases, Government servants who have been in continuous service for a period of not less than one year 'shall also be eligible for appointment'. The use of the word 'also' indicates an intention to make a separate or additional provision besides or in addition to the provision in the first part of the sub-rule. ( 9 ) WE are therefore of the opinion that the contrary interpretation placed on the proviso by the Public Service Commission, the 1st respondent, is not correct. ( 10 ) AS this conclusion is sufficient to dispose of this Writ Petition, it may not be necessary to examine the second argument of Mr. Muralidhar rao based on our previous decision in Writ Petition No. 4538 of 1868 (1 ). As, however, the argument suggests that the said decision is likely to be misunderstood, we consider it proper to examine the second argument also. ( 11 ) IN the said case, the petitioner had applied for selection as a Sub-Inspector of Police, recruitment to which post was governed by the mysore State Police Services Recruitment Rules, 1967, specially applicable to recruitment to Police Services. His age was beyond the prescribed limit of 28 years. He was not in Government service and was not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the General recruitment Rules. He however, wanted to depend upon clause (c. 1) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 6. We held that he was not entitled to the benefit thereof, because the 6th rule itself opens with the statement "save as otherwise provided in the rules of recruitment specially made and applicable in respect of any post". He however, wanted to depend upon clause (c. 1) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 6. We held that he was not entitled to the benefit thereof, because the 6th rule itself opens with the statement "save as otherwise provided in the rules of recruitment specially made and applicable in respect of any post". This statement of reason is likely to lead to the suggestion that once the special rules prescribed age limit, the entire Rule 6 is out of the way. But that is not what we meant. Actually in the case of a post of the Sub-Inspector of Police, the Mysore state Police Services Recruitment Rules, 1967, contain a detailed provision regarding the age limits. The first part of the provision copies sub-rule (1) of Rule 6; the latter part of it copies clauses (b), (c) and (d) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of the General Recruitment Rules, it does not copy either clause (a) or clause (c-1) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 6. The position therefore is that in respect of every one of the three matters dealt with by Rule 6 of the General Recruitment Rules as explained above, the special rules for recruitment to Police Services make a provision. While doing so, a portion of sub-rule (4) is omitted. It would therefore be a clear case of other express provision. Hence the said provision should govern to the exclusion of the general provision, because Rule 1 (3) (a) of the General Recruitment Rules states that the said rules shall apply to all State Civil Services and the holders of all posts, whether temporary or permanent, except otherwise provided by or under any law for the time being in force. That is the support for our last decision in Writ petition 4538 of 1968 (1 ). That decision is therefore not available to support the argument that the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 becomes inapplicable if the main provision of the said sub-rule (1) does not apply. That is the support for our last decision in Writ petition 4538 of 1968 (1 ). That decision is therefore not available to support the argument that the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 becomes inapplicable if the main provision of the said sub-rule (1) does not apply. ( 12 ) THE correct view to take regarding the application of Rule 6 of the General Recruitment Rules appears to us to be the following:" (a) If the special rules do not prescribe age limits, then, the main provision of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 applies; if the special rules prescribe only one age limit without making any provision in regard to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, then, the said limit will stand enhanced by 5 years in the case of such castes and tribes. (b) The proviso to sub-rule (1) applies in the case of special rules also, subject only to the condition that if the special rules provide for upper age limits, i. e. , limits higher than those mentioned in the proviso, such upper age limits will apply. (c) Sub-rule (4) will apply in all cases, whether under the General recruitment Rules or under the special rules, because that sub-rule is to operate notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1);"if, however, the topic dealt with in sub-rule (4) is also specifically dealt with in the special rules, then the provision of the special rules will apply to the exclusion of the said sub-rule (4), by virtue of Rule 1 (3) (a) of the General Recruitment Rules. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons already stated, the petitioner in this case was entitled to have his application for recruitment considered by the 1st respondent-Public Service Commission because he had been in Government service for more than one year at the time of the application and was therefore entitled to the enhancement conferred by the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the General Recruitment Rules. ( 14 ) WE therefore make the following order :" (1) The 1st respondent-Public Service Commission will now proceed to consider the application of the petitioner on the footing that he is within the age limit prescribed for the post of Technical officer, Student Health Education Unit; (2) If, upon such consideration, the Public Service Commission finds him to be better entitled to or more suitable for appointment to the said post, the 3rd respondent-State Government will proceed to appoint him to the said post through the appropriate appointing authority; (3) If the petitioner gets so appointed, the 2nd respondent will vacate the post to which she has been appointed on the selection made by the 1st respondent-Public Service Commission, ignoring the case of the petitioner. (4) The parties will bear their own costs. " --- *** --- .