A. S. QURESHI, J. ( 1 ) THE learned Single Judge of this Court rejected the petition by the appellants holding that the failure to call the petitioners for personal interview by the Gujarat Public Service Commission for considering the cases for selection to Class II post was in accordance with the rule. The only contention that we are concerned with in this appeal is whether in accord ance with the rules applicable to the parties the petitioners-appellants must be taken as over-aged which is the reason indicated by the Public Service Commission for declining to call the petitioners for personal interview. ( 2 ) THE petitioners were appointed on 15-4-1969 under the Directorate of Health Services of Gujarat State. At the time they filed the petition they were working as Health Education Extension Officers in the Health and Family Welfare Training Centre at Ahmedabad. Applications were invited for seven posts in Class II cadre and the petitioners also applied. In the preliminary selec tion the petitioners passed and the next stage of selection was one of interview. But by Annexure C they were told that they were age-barred and could no. De called for interview. It is this Annexure C letter dated 17-11-1983 that is responsible for resort to this Court. ( 3 ) THE relevant rules of 1968 which govern the selection to the concerned posts is Annexure A to the petition and these rules contemplate appointment to the post inter alia by direct selection. It is provided in the relevant rule that to be eligible for appointment by direct selection a candidate must be not more than 25 years of age unless already in Gujarat State Services. The main thrust of the petitioners case is that this is a rule which does not prescribe an age limit for those in Government service and it prescribes age limit of 28 only for those who seek appointment not being in Government service. It is therefore their case that they are entitled to be selected without any restriction as to age limit. I his plea has not succeeded before the learned Judge because the learned Judge has referred to the general Rule 8 of the Gujarat Civil Service Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967 That rule reads:"8 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained-in any rules for the time being in force. . . I his plea has not succeeded before the learned Judge because the learned Judge has referred to the general Rule 8 of the Gujarat Civil Service Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967 That rule reads:"8 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained-in any rules for the time being in force. . . the upper age limit for the purpose of recruitment prescribed in such rules shall not apply to a candidate who is already in Gujarat Government service either as a permanent Government servant or as a temporary Government servant officiating continuously for six months in a substantive or leave vacancy or in a vacancy caused as a result of deputation of other servants and was within the age limit prescribed for the post at the time of his first appointment in Government service provided that such upper age limit shall apply to such candidate in a case where recruitment to a post or service is done through competitive examination or by direct selection for which experience has not been prescribed as one of the qualifications for such post. Provided further that where a post requiring a medical engineering or agricultural degree or diploma as a qualification is to be filled by direct selection through the Public Service Commission a Government Servant who was within the age limit when appointed to such post shall if he subsequently applies for any such post 6e entitled to relaxation from the application of the upper age limit prescribed as aforesaid even if experience has not been prescribed as one of the qualifications for such post". The proviso to the rule. if applicable could make the upper age limit applicable to the candidate. The proviso would apply where recruitment is done through competitive examination or by direct selection to a post for which experience has not been prescribed as one of the qualifications. This Class II post to which direct selection is made here is a post to which experience has not been prescribed as one of the qualifications and. therefore it may appear that the proviso would be operate to make the upper age limit applicable. It is this view that has been taken by the learned Single Judge as a consequence of which the petition has been dismissed. therefore it may appear that the proviso would be operate to make the upper age limit applicable. It is this view that has been taken by the learned Single Judge as a consequence of which the petition has been dismissed. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that the proviso has no application because the proviso would apply to a case to which main part of the provision would apply. In other words it would apply only in a case where the upper age-limit for the purpose of recruitment is prescribed in any rule. The petitioners care evidently is that in the case of Government servants the upper age-limit has not been prescribed. They would read the relevant rule extracted earlier to mean that the upper age limit is fixed for those who are not in Government service and for those in Government service that is not fixed by the rule and therefore it is not prescribed. Perhaps reading rule 8 (5) are whole it may be possible to say that the upper age limit is prescribed for all but Government servants are excluded from it. It is equally plausible to understand the rule as not fixing the upper age limit for Government employees since in the special rule which we have quoted earlier those in Government service are excluded. What is significant is that a similar question had come up for consideration before this Court many years ago in a decision rendered on 16/12/1974 by Justice S. H. Sheth in Special Civil Application No. 1466 of 1973. There a similar rule was construed and the Court took the view that the upper age limit has not been prescribed by sub-rule (2) of Rule 109 of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Commissioner of Labour for persons in Government service. This was referred to with approval in a latter decision of this Court by Justice P D. Desai (as he then was) in Special Civil Application No. 318 of 1978 on 2 The earlier decision was quoted by the learned Judge. It was noticed by the learned Judge that it was surprising that the argument was advanced on behalf of the State Government although there was a direct decision wherein a similar argument based on sub-rule (5) of the General Rules real with its proviso had been rejected by the Court. It was noticed by the learned Judge that it was surprising that the argument was advanced on behalf of the State Government although there was a direct decision wherein a similar argument based on sub-rule (5) of the General Rules real with its proviso had been rejected by the Court. ( 5 ) THEREFORE it is evident that two approaches are possible and one of them has appealed to this Court and tat has been allowed to stand by the rule being left untouched. It would necessarily mean that the interpretation put upon the rule by the Court on the two earlier occasions had been accepted by the rule making authority. In other words if the construction or the rule by this Court on the earlier occasions was found not to accord withe the a approach by the Government there was ample occasion for the Government to amend the rule to express its intention to be otherwise. That having not been done. it would be only appropriate to assume that the construction put by the Court on the earlier occasions is a proper construction and if so there would he no justification to make a different construction to the rule. This does not preclude any amendment to the rule if the Government feels that the position should be different from what has been understood by the Court on a proper construction of the rule. As the matter stands the petitioners are right in their stand that they are eligible for being considered for selection without any bar of age and to that. extent they should succeed in the petition as well as in the appeal. ( 6 ) WE are told that petitioners have been actually interviewed and the result is kept in a sealed cover. It is also said that if the result is to operate the petitioners would get relief. That relief must be given to the petitioners for which purpose the matter would be looked into by the Public Service Commission as well as by the State Government and implemented as expeditiously and at any rate not later than four months from today. ( 7 ) THE appeal is allowed as above. No costs. Appeal allowed. .