JUDGMENT Agrawal, J.: - The short question raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether there is manifest illegality in the respondents' treating the petitioner as having retired upon attaining the age of superannuation with effect from October 1 1986. The petitioner was recruited as Constable in Civil Police on September 2, 1947. Gradually by promotion he rose to the rank of Circle Officer (Deputy Superintendent of Police). In the service book the petitioner is recorded as of 19 years. The date of birth recorded is September 2, 1928. The petitioner passed Vernacular Final Examination in 1944 conducted by the Department of Public Instructions. In the certificate we have the date of birth recorded as January 16, 1930. Subsequent to the enlistment in service the petitioner passed the High Schools Examination in 1954 conducted by the Board of High Schools & Intermediate Education, U. P. On March 10/ 12, 1986, there was notice issued to him by the respondents stating that he was to retire with effect from October 1, 1986, and could collect the pension papers accordingly. A representation was filed by the petitioner on March 15, 1986, asserting that the correct date of birth is January 16, 1930, and thus he is entitled to continue in service till January 15, 1988. The representation has been rejected on September 27, 1986. 2. We have heard the learned counsel. 3. In exercise of powers under the proviso to Article 309(2) of the Constitution, the State Government framed the U. P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules. The representation has been rejected on September 27, 1986. 2. We have heard the learned counsel. 3. In exercise of powers under the proviso to Article 309(2) of the Constitution, the State Government framed the U. P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules. 1974 Rule 2 reads as under : - "The date of birth of Government servant as recorded in the certificate of his having passed the High School or equivalent examination, or where a Government servant has not passed any such examination as aforesaid, the date of birth or the age recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into Government service, shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age, as the case may he, for all purposes in relation to his service including, eligibility for promotion, superannuation, premature retirement or retirement benefit and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever." With effect from June 7, 1980, this Rule too was amended by the U. P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth)(First Amendment) Rules, 1980, and has amended Rule 2 as follows : "The date of birth of a Government servant as recorded in the certificate of his having passed the High School or equivalent examination at the time of his entry into the Government service or where a Government servant has not passed any such examination as aforesaid or has passed such examination after joining the service, the date' of birth or the age recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into the Government service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes in relation to his service, including eligibility for promotion, superannuation, premature retirement or retirement benefits, and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever." 4. As per amended R. 2 the correct date of birth in relation to a Government servant shall be deemed to be : i. in case the Government servant had passed the High School or equivalent examination at the time of his entry into the Government service, the date of birth as recorded in the certificate; of his having passed such examination; ii. in case Government servant had not passed High School Examination or equivalent examination at the time of this entry into Government service the date of birth or age recorded. in the service hook: iii. in case Government servant passed High School Examination or equivalent examination after joining the service, the date of birth or the age recorded in the service book. 5. In the case before us when the petitioner entered in service on September 2, 1947, he had passed the Vernacular Final Examination in 1944. High School Examination he came to pass subsequently in the year 1954. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the date of birth recorded in the Vernacular Final Examination Certificate be deemed to be the correct date of birth relating to the petitioner. This is clearly unacceptable. The basic fallacy which underlies this submission is that this places the Vernacular Final Examination at par with or equivalent to the High School Examination, which it is not. In the course of the arguments learned counsel candidly stated that the Vernacular Final Examination (Hindi Middle Examination) takes place after a student has put in through Class VI, whereas the High School Examination takes place after the candidates has put in Class X. There is no question of the Vernacular Final Examination being treatable as equivalent to the High School Examination. In Chambers 20th Century Dictionary (1972) at page 443 we find the expression 'equivalent' defined as meaning : - "equal in value, power meaning etc. interchangeable; of like combining value." 6. In Blacks Law Dictionary 5th End. page 486 the 'equivalent' is defined:- "equal in value, force, measure, volume, power and effect or having equal or corresponding import meaning or significance." 7. Applying any of these tests, the Vernacular Final Examination cannot be classed as equivalent to the High School Examination. The rule does not contemplate examination such as be the minimum required to be passed at the time of entry into a particular service. True for purposes of recruitment as Constable, the minimum requirement was of having passed the Hindi Middle Examination (Vernacular Final Examination) but R. 2 as it envisages examination which ranks as equivalent to the High School Examination. The language implied in the rule is unambiguous: it is plain and has to he given the meaning which it ordinarily bears. True for purposes of recruitment as Constable, the minimum requirement was of having passed the Hindi Middle Examination (Vernacular Final Examination) but R. 2 as it envisages examination which ranks as equivalent to the High School Examination. The language implied in the rule is unambiguous: it is plain and has to he given the meaning which it ordinarily bears. To construe 'equivalent examination' as meaning the examination which a Government servant is required to have passed in the minimum at the time of entry into a service would require importing certain words into the Rule which obviously are not there. Since the petitioner had not passed the High School or equivalent examination at the time of his entry into Government service the correct date of birth in his case shall he deemed to be the date of birth or age recorded in the service book. The High School Examintion which the petitioner passed being subsequent to the entry in service the date of birth recorded in the High School Certificate, that is January 16, 1930, is ruled out by the deeming clause contained in the said Rule. 8. A deeming provision postulates that a thing deemed to be something is not, in fact, the thing it, is deemed to be When a thing is deemed to be something, it is to he treated as that thing though, in fact, it is not. A deeming provision creates a legal fiction. The effect of such a fiction is that a position which would otherwise not obtain, is deemed to obtain. Reference in this connection may be made to Commr. of Income-tax, Bombay v. Bombay Trust Corporation Ltd., AIR 1930 PC 54 . The word 'deemed' was interpreted by Viscount Dunedin as follows : "When a person is' deemed to he' something the only meaning possible is that whereas he is not in reality that something, the Act requires him to be treated as if he were." 9. The principle enunciated by the Privy Council referred to above was approved by the Supreme Court in K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar, AIR 1958 SC 687 . According to the said decision a deeming provision creates a legal fiction and the effect of such a legal fiction is that a position which otherwise would not obtain is deemed to obtain under these circumstances. According to the said decision a deeming provision creates a legal fiction and the effect of such a legal fiction is that a position which otherwise would not obtain is deemed to obtain under these circumstances. The word' deemed' again came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Addl. Income tax Officer v. E Alfred, AIR 1962 SC 663 . The Court held that when a thing is deemed to be something else, it is to be treated as if it is that thing though, in fact it is not. The aforesaid decision of the Privy Council was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Narain Bux Singh v. State of U. P.. 1981 All W 649. 10. The rule about a legal fiction was stated by Lord Asquith in East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council. 1952 AC 109 (b) in the following words : "If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it.The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs, it does not say that having done so. you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs." 11. This may also be illustrated with the aid of the Explanation l(a) to sub-section (2) of S. 2 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The Explanation enumerates the date on which the building shall be deemed to have been completed. This may he the date on which the completion thereof is reported to or otherwise recorded by the local authority having jurisdiction: in case of building subject to assessment, the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect; where the said dates are different the earliest of the said dates; in the absence of any such report, record or assessment the date on which it is actually occupied for the first time. The significant factor is that the building may not have actually been completed on the relevant date but by importing legal fiction it is to be deemed as if the completion took place on any one of the dates laid down under the Explanation I vide Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sen Wadhera. (1984) 3 SCC 352 : ( AIR 1985 SC 817 )). In Hirday Ram v. H. H. S. Kochar 1977 All Rent Cas 323 : (AIR 1977 NOC 357) interpreting this Explanation it was observed : "It is significant that in the Explanation the actual date of construction has not been laid down to be the date on which the building is to he deemed to be completed. In of her words, irrespective of the actual date of such construction, that date shall he deemed to be the date of completion which satisfies the criteria laid down in the aforesaid Explanation..........when law has interposed to lay down a fiction, it is not open to fall back on the reality or the factual aspect' of the matter. If the reality of the matter or the actual aspect of the matter were to be considered then that course will he in the teeth of the deeming provision............ (See also Smt. Samundri Devi v. Nand Kishore Manvah. (1986) 2 All Rent Cas 428 : (1987 All LJ 255)). 12. So on true construction, therefore, the expression 'shall be deemed to he his correct date of birth or age as the same may be' appearing in the amended R. 2 shall, in our opinion, mean that the date of birth or the age recorded in the service book shall for all practical purposes relating to the service matters be taken to he the correct date of birth and a dispute relating to the same is excluded where the case is covered under any one of the classes appearing in the rule. The rule aims at clinching the controversy arising on this score at any future date. May be September 2. 1928 is not the actual date on which the petitioner was born, but this being the date entered in the service book, it is to he deemed by legal fiction as the correct date of birth. 13. The rule aims at clinching the controversy arising on this score at any future date. May be September 2. 1928 is not the actual date on which the petitioner was born, but this being the date entered in the service book, it is to he deemed by legal fiction as the correct date of birth. 13. Our attention was invited also by the learned counsel to Government Order dated August 19 1978, which is Annexure-I to the rejoinder affidavit and note has been made above already of R. 2 as it was under the Rules 1974 prior to the amendment brought with effect from June 7, 1980. A comparison of R. 2 as it was prior to the amendment with the amended R. 2 would show that in the rule as earlier existing the words' at the time of his entry into Government service or has passed such examination after joining the service' did not appear. In other word under R. 2 as existing prior to the amendment it was of no consequence whether the High School Examination or Equivalent Examination was passed subject to joining the service or prior to it. The Government Order 1978 merely elucidates or clarifies the said R. 2 as it originally existed and says that it made no difference whether the High School Examination was passed subsequent to the entry into service or prior to it. This elucidation pertaining to R. 2 unamended can by no, means prevail against or override what is prescribed in R. 2 as the amended with effect from June 7, 1980. The Rules being statutory prevail certainly as against as executive instructions or direction given in aid of the preexisting rule which has been changed as a result of the amendment. The Government Order 1978 consequently does not avail the petitioner. 14. For the petitioner it was submitted also that when he joined service. he had produced the Vernacular Final Examination Certificate and that he had put in his signature on the service book at the dictate of the clerk concerned. We are not called upon to enter into this contention on point of fact keeping in view the effect and import of the deeming clause contained in R. 2 as amended) to which a reference has been made above. We are not called upon to enter into this contention on point of fact keeping in view the effect and import of the deeming clause contained in R. 2 as amended) to which a reference has been made above. Suffice it may to add that this contention of the petitioner is rebutted as appearing from pars 8 of the counter-affidavit in the following words : "That the contents of para 7 of the writ petition are incorrect and are denied. His date of birth as 2/9/28 was recorded on his own version and the recommendation of the Civil Surgeon also found him of that age. It may he brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court that the petitioner at the time of his enlistment as Constable had signed in English on the first page of his Character-roll wherein it has been clearly mentioned in bold letters that his date of birth is 2/9/28. The petitioner not only signed in English but has also put his thumb-impression on that which clearly goes to show that the petitioner has a good English writing and he knew English very well. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not know of his date of birth or that it was incorrectly recorded. Further instance, if the date of birth of the petitioner is taken as 6/1/30 he could have never been enlisted as being 18 years of age." 15. In this connection a note may also be made of the circumstance that the minimum age for entry into the service as Constable in the Civil Police being prescribed as 18 years it is not probable that the date of birth recorded in the Vernacular Final Examination 'Certificate would have been relied upon by the petitioner when he joined in - the reason being that as per entry of the date of birth in that certificate (January 16. 19:0) he would have been below the prescribed minimum age on September 2. 1947. and as such ineligible to be taken in service. 16. Learned counsel proceeded to add that the authority might have waived the minimum age prescribed for entry into the service. We are not referred to any order or note appearing in the record in this connection which may suggest even by implication that there would have been such waiver. 1947. and as such ineligible to be taken in service. 16. Learned counsel proceeded to add that the authority might have waived the minimum age prescribed for entry into the service. We are not referred to any order or note appearing in the record in this connection which may suggest even by implication that there would have been such waiver. The pleading in relation to waiver is itself farely speculative in nature : see para 5 of the rejoinder affidavit wherein it is stated "the authorities at that time might have thought of getting the minimum age limit restriction waived by the D.I.G. at a subsequent date later took the matter casually.......". 17. In the light of the discussion made above, the petition, in our opinion, lacs merit and is consequently dismissed in limine.