R. C. MANKAD, J. ( 1 ) THE common point which arises for my considerations these two petitions is whether the petitioners are entitled to relaxation of the appear age limit for appointment to the post of Assistant Town Planner Since the common question arises in these petitions they are disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS were employed as Planning Assistants when applications were invited for the post of Assistant Town Planners which is a class II gazetted post. Petitioners were selected for these posts and were given ad hoc appoints ments as Assistant Town Planners. It may be mentioned here that they were given these ad hoc appointments although they had crossed the upper age limit of 30 years prescribed for the post of Assistant Town Planner under the rules called Assistant Town Planners/land Acquisition Officers (Town Planning and Valuation Department) Recruitment Rules 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Rules ). Since the post of Assistant Town Planners came within the purview of Gujarat Public Service Commission Commission for short ). recruitment to that post could have been made only by selection through the Commission. It was therefore that petitioners were given ad hoc appointments as stated above. The Commission invited applications for 11 posts of Assistant Town Planners by advertisement which was published in the newspapers on 4/06/1984 Petitioners who were ad hoc appointees applied for the post. The Commission however did not call the petitioners for interview informing them that they were not within the prescribed age limit. Petitioners thereupon made representations for relaxation of the upper age limit. However since no reply was received they have approached this Court by way of these petitions contending amongst other things that they are entitled to relaxation of the upper age limit. ( 3 ) PETITIONERS have claimed relaxation of the upper age limit under the second proviso to rule 3 of the Recruitment Rules and second proviso to subrule (5) of rule 3 of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the General Rules ). ( 3 ) PETITIONERS have claimed relaxation of the upper age limit under the second proviso to rule 3 of the Recruitment Rules and second proviso to subrule (5) of rule 3 of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the General Rules ). Rule 3 of the Recruitment Rules on which petitioners rely reads as under:-"3 To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post mentioned in rule 2 a candidate must : (a) be not more than 30 years of age (b) possess (1) a degree in architecture or in Civil Engineering of a recognised University or institution for its equivalent qualification recognised by the Government and (2) a degree or diploma in City/town Regional Planning awarded by a recognised University or Institution or membership obtained by examination of Institute of Town Planners of India Provided that the upper age limit may be relaxed in favour of candidate who is already in the service of the Govt. of Gujarat in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967 as amended from time to time. Provided further that the upper age limit may also be relaxed in favour of a candidate possessing exceptionally good qualification or experience or both". Petitioners contention is that they are possessing exceptionally good qualification and also experience and therefore. they are entitled to relaxation of the upper age limit under the second proviso to rule 3. Sub-rule (5) of rule 8 of the General Rules on which also petitioners rely reads as follows:-" (5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any rules for the time being in force relating to the recruitment to any service or post 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 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 up 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 applied for any such post be entitled to relaxation from the application of the upper age limit prescribed aforesaid even if experience has not been prescribed as one of the qualification for such post". Petitioners contend that when they applied for the post of Assistant Town Planner they were in Government service continuously for more than six months and since the post of-Planning Assistant which they were holding and the post of Assistant Town Planner for which they had applied required engineering degree or dip na they were entitled to relaxation of upper aga limit under the second proviso to sub-rule (5) of rule 8 of the General Rules. ( 4 ) IT do not Consider it necessary to go into the question whether or not the petitioners possess exceptionally good qualification and experience within the meaning of the second proviso to rule 3 of the Recruitment Rules so as to become eligible for relaxation of upper age limit in the said provision since in my opinion the petitioners must succeed on the interpretation of the second proviso to sub-rule (5 ). of rule 8 of the General Rules. ( 5 ) IT is not disputed on behalf of the respondents that the post of Planning Assistant which the petitioners are holding and the post of Assistant Town Planner for which they had applied required engineering degree or diploma as qualifica tion. It is also not in dispute that petitioners are in Government service cons tinuously for more than six months. It is however contended on behalf of the respondents tnat since the post of Assistant Town Planner for which the petitioners have applied is not a post equivalent to the post and Planning Assistant which they are substantively holding second proviso to sub-rile of rule 8 of the general Rules is not attracted. It is however contended on behalf of the respondents tnat since the post of Assistant Town Planner for which the petitioners have applied is not a post equivalent to the post and Planning Assistant which they are substantively holding second proviso to sub-rile of rule 8 of the general Rules is not attracted. It is contended that this provision will apply only in case where petitioners had applied for same or equivalent post. The. post of Assistant Town Planner is a post higher than the post of Planning Assistant and the qualifications prescribed for that post are also higher than those prescribed for the post of planning Assistant. Therefore the post of Assistant Town Planner cannot be considered to be a post equivalent to the post of Planning Assistant. It is further submitted that petitioners having not acquired the qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant Town Planner before they reached the upper age limit of 30 years they are not entitled to relaxation of the upper age limit. I do not find substance in either of these two contentions. ( 6 ) AS Already pointed out above it is not disputed that petitioners are in Government service continuously for a period of more than six months and. therefore sub-rule (5) of tale 8 of the General Rules is applicable to them Recruitment to the post of Assistant Town Planner is to be made by direct selection and therefore. under the first proviso to sub-rule (5) the upper age limit would apply but if the petitioners are covered by the second proviso to the said sub-rule (5) they would be entitled to relaxation ofupper age limit. Therefore the question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioners case falls under the second proviso to sub-rule (5) of rule 8. On a plain reading of the proviso it is clear that where a post requiring medical engineering or agricultural degree or diploma as qualification is to be filled up by direct selection through Commission a Government servant who was within the age limit when appointed to such post shall if he subsequently applied for any such post be entitled to relaxation from the application of the prescribed age limit even if experience has not been prescribed as one of the qualifications for that post. In order to attract application of the second proviso to sub-rule (5) three conditions must be fulfilled namely (i) the candidate is holding a post requiring medical engineering or agricultural degree or diploma (2) he was within the age limit when appointed to such post and (3) the post for which the candidate has applied is also a post requiring medical engineering or agricultural degree or diploma. A person holding the post requiring medical engineering or agricultural degree or diploma is not entitled to the benefit of this provision only in case he applies for same or equivalent post requiring medical engineering or agricultural degree or diploma. The expression any such post used in the proviso can only mean post requiring medical engineering or agricultural degree or diploma and not the same or equivalent post. In fact before the said provision was amended the expression used was same post but this expression was substituted by any such post making it clear that the application has to be for a post requiring medical engineering or agricultural degree or diploma. Therefore if a person holding a post requiring medical engineering or agricultural decree or diploma applies for another post which also requires medical engineering or agricultural decree or diploma he is entitled to relaxation of upper age limit under the second proviso to sub-rule (5) of rule 8. It is not correct to say that he is entitled to such relaxation only in case where he applies for the same or equivalent post as urged on behalf of the respondents. The interpretation which has been placed on the proviso by the respondent cannot be sustained. So far as the second contention regarding acquisition of qualifications within the prescribed age limit is concerned there is nothing in the rules to suggest that the requisite qualifications must be acquired before the candidate reaches the upper age limit. I is not disputed that the petitioners acquired the requisite qualifications after attaining the age 30 years which is the upper age limit for the post of Assistant Town Planners. However there is no provision in the General Rules which lays down that the candidate should have acquired requisite qualification before attaining or reaching the upper age limit. I is not disputed that the petitioners acquired the requisite qualifications after attaining the age 30 years which is the upper age limit for the post of Assistant Town Planners. However there is no provision in the General Rules which lays down that the candidate should have acquired requisite qualification before attaining or reaching the upper age limit. The second proviso to sub-rule (5) of rule 8 of the General Rules would apply irrespective of the fact as to when the requisite qualification is acquired provided the other conditions laid down in sub-rule (5) are satisfied. As already observed above it is not disputed that other conditions of sub-rule (5) of rule 8 are satisfied by the petitioners. Therefore the second contention raised on behalf of the respondents must also fail. In the view which I am taking petitioner are entitled to relaxation of age under second proviso to sub-rule (5) of rule 8 of the General Rules. The Commission was therefore wrong in deciding not to cal them for interview. This Court had by interim relief of interview. Now this result will have to de declared. If the petitioners are selected they are entitled to be appointed to the post Assistant Town Planners. These petition must therefore succeed. ( 7 ) IN the result these petitions are allowed. It is declared that the petitioners being in Government service continuously for more than six months are entitled to relaxation of upper age limit under the second proviso to sub rule (5) of rule 8 of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967 and petitioners are petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant known Planner. The Commission is directed to declare the result of she interview of the petitioners and if the petitioners are selected respondent State of Gujarat is directed to appoint the petitioners to the post of Assistant town Planners. ( 8 ) RULE made absolute accordingly in each of these petitions with costs. Petition allowed. .