JUDGMENT P. D. Desai, C. J.— The following facts are not in dispute : 2. The petitioner was born on June 30, 1963. He participated in the S. S. B. Organisation activities on a voluntary basis. He was imparted training as a volunteer during the course of such participation. He then applied for being enrolled as Constable (General Duty). The application was received on December 2, 1986 Annexed to the application was the certificate of the matriculation examination in proof of the age and educational qualification. 3. In the month of April 1986, certain eligible candidates, including the petitioner, were invited for interview by a letter dated April 3, 1986 issued under the orders of the Commandant, Group Centre, S.S.B. Shamshi, Kullu, H. P. The candidates were actually interviewed at the group Centre, S. S. B., Shamshi, on April U/12, 1986. By a communication dated June 16, 1986, Annexure PB, issued by the Commandant, Group Centre, S.S.B., Shamshi, the petitioner was informed that the medical examination of the candidates for the post could not be done by the Unit Medical Officer at the time of interview and that he should, therefore send a medical certificate regarding his height, chest, weight etc. to the Group Centre Office on or before July 10, 1986. By another communication dated June 17, 1987, Annexure PA, issued by the same officer, the petitioner was informed that he bad been provisionally selected for the post of Constable (General Duty). He was directed to send the verification forms sent alongwith the said communication in duplicate for his signature duly completed in all respects and attested by a Gazetted Officer to the Group Centre Office at Shamshi immediately. The petitioner accordingly sent the verification forms duly signed and completed in time. The petitioner reported for medical examination, presumably in compliance of Annexure-PB, to the Unit Medical Officer, Shamshi. As per the certificate dated June 28, 1980, issued pursuant to the medical examination, he was found medically fit. The certificate was produced/forwarded on the same day to the recruiting agency. The verification forms received from the petitioner were forwarded on July 8, 9 and 10, 1986 to the State CID, Superintendent of Police, Mandi, and the S. S. B. Directorate respectively for the necessary follow-up action. The compliance reports were received from those authorities on August 14, 1986 September 6, 1986, and September 16, 1986 respectively. The verification forms received from the petitioner were forwarded on July 8, 9 and 10, 1986 to the State CID, Superintendent of Police, Mandi, and the S. S. B. Directorate respectively for the necessary follow-up action. The compliance reports were received from those authorities on August 14, 1986 September 6, 1986, and September 16, 1986 respectively. The verification reports were favourable to the petitioner. 4. Whereas the other candidates interviewed alongwith the petitioner received appointment as Constables (General Duty, the petitioner was not enlisted. He, therefore, addressed a representation dated January 5, 1987, Annexure PC, to the Divisional Organiser, SSB, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Laddakh, Shimla, stating that he had come to know that he was ignored in the matter of enrolment on the ground of over-age but, in fact, he satisfied the eligibility qualification as to age on the day on which the interview was held He requested, alternatively, that the bar of age limit, if any, be relaxed in his case and that he be offered appointment as Constable (General Duty). The petitioner was informed by the Commandant, Group Centre, SSB, Shamshi, vide letter dated February It, 1987, Annexure PD, that the sanction for relaxation of age for his enrolment was not accorded by the Divisional Organiser, Shimla, and that, therefore, appointment could not be offered to him. Hence the present writ petition. 5. Be it stated that the entire factual date herein-above set out is not found reflected in the material placed on the record of the case but, with the consent of the parties and the assistance of the learned Central Government Standing Counsel, the same has been taken from the original record of the respondents. These facts, as earlier pointed out, are not in dispute. 6. The recruitment for the post of Constable (General Duty) in the S.S.B. Organisation is admittedly governed by the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (herein after referred to as "the Rules"). The material provisions are found in the Rules and those which require to be noticed are Rules 10 to 14. The relevant portions of these Rules are extracted and reproduced here- in below .— "10. The material provisions are found in the Rules and those which require to be noticed are Rules 10 to 14. The relevant portions of these Rules are extracted and reproduced here- in below .— "10. Recruitment.—(a) A candidate for enlistment in the Force must conform to the standard laid down in Rule 11 below, must bear a good character and must be (a) citizen of India or (b) a person who has migrated from Pakistan with the intention of permanently settling in India, or (c) a subject of Nepal or of a Portuguese possession in India, and if he comes under category (b) or (c) must be a person in whose favour a certificate of eligibility has been given by the Government of India. A candidate in whose case a certificate is necessary may, however, be appointed provisionally subject to the necessary certificate being eventually given to him by Government: Provided ex-convicts, or Army or Police deserters shall not be enlisted. 11. Enlistment Standards,—(a) Save as here in otherwise provided, no person shall be enrolled as a member of the Force unless he conforms to the following minimum standard :— (1) Height —5—7" (2) Chest — 31 ½ " expanded 33 ½ " (3) Age (i) For Sub-Inspectors : Age not less than 19 and not more then 24 years. (ii) For Head Constables : Age not less than 18 and Naiks and Constables not more than 23 years. (4) Following shall be the minimum educational qualifications for direct recruitment in the following ranks, namely : Sub-Inspectors Graduate OR Head Constables Matriculation or Naiks VIII Class Constables Pass. Equivalent Army qualifications in the case of ex-Army men. (b) The minimum standard laid down in sub-rule (a) in so far as it relates to height may be relaxed from 5"— 7" to 5"—5" in the case of people having martial traditions such as Gorkhas, Garhwalis, Kumaonese, Dogras and Marathas ; (bb) the minimum standard laid down in sub-rule (a) may be relaxed : — (i) in so for as it relates to height, from 5—7" to 5-—4". (ii) in so far as it relates to chest measurement, from 31-1/2" expanded 33-1/2" to 30" expanded 32" for Advises. (ii) in so far as it relates to chest measurement, from 31-1/2" expanded 33-1/2" to 30" expanded 32" for Advises. (c) The minimum standard laid down in sub-rule (a) in so far as it relates to height may be relaxed from 5f—7" to 5-—4" in case of person who have attained the age of eighteen years bot have not attained twenty years ; (d) The minimum chest standard laid down in sub-rule (a) above may be relaxed by one inch in case of all person including those belonging to hill tribes who have attained the age of eighteen years but not more than twenty years : Provided that the exemptions specified in (c) and (d) above are made subject to the condition that the medical officer certifies that a person concerned is likely to attain the minimum standard prescribed. Ex servicemen who are of exemplary or very good character may be enlisted notwithstanding that they are over 23 years of age provided they are under 30 years of age and are otherwise suitable for enlistment. Exception to any of these qualifications may be made with the prior approved of :— (i) The Ministry of Home Affairs in the case of any Superior Officer. (ii) The Inspector General in case of a Subedar Major or Subtdar (Inspector), and (iii) The Deputy Inspector General in the case of any other member of the Force. (g) The Commandant may at his discretion enlist as enrolled followers, persons who have attained the age 18 years but not more than 40 years provided they are medically fit. (h) The upper age limit prescribed may be relaxed in the case of candidates belonging to the scheduled castes, the scheduled tribes and of special categories of persons in accordance with orders issued from time to time by the Central Government. (GSR-1673 published in G/L Gazette on 17-12-77). 12. Health Certificate.—No candidate shall be enrolled unless he obtains a health certificate in the prescribed Form CRP-I signed by Medical Supdt and Staff Surgeon, Central Reserve Police Hospital, Neemuch, or by a Civil Surgeon or by a Recruiting Medical Officer. 13. Recruiting Roll.—Every member of the Force shall sign, or if illiterate place his thumb impression mark on the agreement in Form CRP-I. This form on completion shall be attached to the character and Service Roll of the member of the Force concerned. 14. 13. Recruiting Roll.—Every member of the Force shall sign, or if illiterate place his thumb impression mark on the agreement in Form CRP-I. This form on completion shall be attached to the character and Service Roll of the member of the Force concerned. 14. Verification.—(a) As soon as a man is enrolled, his character, antecedents, connections and age shall be verified in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Central Government from time to time. The verification Roll shall be sent to the Distt. Magistrate or Dy Commissioner of the Distt. of which the recruit is a resident. (b) The Verification Roll shall be in CRP Form-25 and after verification shall be attached to the Character and Service Roll of the member of the Force concerned. (c) The Commandant may waive verification in the case of men who have been enrolled in the Force within six months of their discharge from the regular Army." 7. The question arising for determination herein, namely, whether the view of the respondents that the petitioner was ineligible as he did not satisfy the eligibility qualification as to age at the time of enrolment, since he had completed the age of 23 on June 30, 1986, is correct in law, depends for its resolution on the true interpretation of the Rules above cited in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. We shall first analyse the relevant provisions of the Rules. Under Rule 10, a candidate for enlistment in the Force must, inter alia, conform to the standard laid down in Rule It. Rule II prescribes the enlistment standards and provides, inter alia that, save as otherwise provided, no person shall be enrolled as a member of the Force unless he conforms to the minimum standards therein prescribed as to height, chest, age and educational qualifications. For Head Constables, Naiks and Constables the minimum and maximum age prescribed is not less than 18 and not more than 23. Exception is permissible to be made with respect to these eligibility qualifications (including age) with the prior approval of the Deputy Inspector General in case of a member of the Force other than a Superior Officer, a Subedar Major or Subedar (Inspector). Under Rule 12, no candidate can be enrolled unless he obtains a health certificate in the prescribed form from the designated medical authority. Under Rule 12, no candidate can be enrolled unless he obtains a health certificate in the prescribed form from the designated medical authority. Rule 13 provides for the signature of every member of the Force, or if he is illiterate, for the placement of his thumb-impression mark, on the agreement in the prescribed form which is to be attached to the Character and Service Roll of the member of the Force, As per Rule 14, as soon as a man is enrolled, his character, antecedents, connections and age are required to be verified in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Central Government from time to time. The verification Roll is to be sent to the District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner of the District of which the recruit is a resident and after verification it is to be attached to the Character and service Roll of the member of the Force concerned. 9. On a combined reading of these relevant Rules, it is apparent that a candidate for enrolment as a member of the Force has to satisfy the prescribed enlistment standards including that relating to age, subject, of course, to an exception being made with the prior approval of the competent authority. Besides, he must obtain a health certificate in the prescribed form the competent authority. The rules are silent as 10 how the recruiting authority is to be satisfied about a candidates conforming to the enlistment standards. However, having regard to the practice and procedure which are ordinarily being followed by the recruiting authorities in the other fields of public employment, where similar eligibility qualifications are prescribed for appointment to any post, the requirements of the Rules with respect to age and educational qualifications must be held to have been satisfied if the candidate produces an authentic proof in the shape of the qualifying examination certificate and/or matriculation examination certificate issued by a statutory Board or University The proof as to the fulfilment of the requisite standards of height and chest is generally obtained by means of a test conducted by a qualified person prior to or at the time of the interview and this is ordinarily arranged by the recruiting authority. This seems to be the practice; prevalent also in the S.S.B. Organisation as evidenced by the letter annexure PB Once these formalities are completed and a health certificates in the prescribed form is produced and a suitability test, if any, is held, the recruit neat procedure as such, under the Rules, comes to an end. In other words, a candidate who is found as aforesaid to conform to the requisite enlistment standards and who produces the health certificate is entitled to enrolment as a member of the Force if he qualifies at the suitability test if any, as and when his turn arrives according to the merit list, subject to verification. The signing of an agreement in the prescribed form and the verification of character, antecedents, connections and age and the placement of these materials on the character and service roll of the member concerned are the formalities which are to be completed after the enrolment. This is so indubitably because Rules 13 and A which deal with these matters provide, inter alia, that "every member of the Force shall sign... ....place his thumb-impression mark on the agreement....,..." and" as soon as a man is enrolled his character, antecedents, connections and age shall be verified.........." respectively. Even otherwise, the word "verified in ordinary meaning signifies "to test the truth or accuracy of, to confirm" and, therefore, it implies that the proof as to age in any authentic form can be supplied by the candidate at the time he seeks enrolment and that it can be tested or confirmed for its truth by an independent enquiry which can be got made subsequently. 10. The net result of the analysis aforesaid of the Rules under consideration is that although the fulfilment of the requisite enlistment standards and the production of a health certificate are the conditions precedent for enrolment as a member of the Force and the proof thereof has to be furnished or obtained prior to a person being inducted as a member of the Force, the verification of proof of age etc. in the prescribed manner is a condition subsequent to such enrolment. in the prescribed manner is a condition subsequent to such enrolment. In other words, once the authentic proof as to the satisfaction of the enlistment conditions and the health certificate is produced or obtained and the eligibility qualifications are found to have been satisfied, the enrolment as a member of the Force is to be made on the basis of merit subject to verification to be made later as per the prescribed procedure. 11. One more aspect needs clarification before proceeding further. Rule 11 does not indicate the precise point of time with reference to which the eligibility qualification as to age is to be satisfied. Ordinarily, in all the recruitment rules, it is found prescribed that the candidate must satisfy the eligibility qualification as to age either on a particular specified date or on the last date on which the applications are to be submitted or on the date of interview and so on and so forth. No such precise date having been specified in Rule 11, the indication, if any, in respect thereto has to be found in the subject or context. Now, in the first place, Rule 11 uses the expression "no person shall be enrolled as a member of the Force" and then goes on to prescribe the minimum standards to which a candidate must conform. It is apparent, therefore, that the eligibility qualification as to age has to be satisfied at some point of time prior to the enrolment. This should be so even otherwise since, in ordinary course, no person who does not fulfil the eligibility qualifications on the date of the commencement of procedure for the appointment, is recruited to any public service, unless resort is had to the powers of exemption, if any. In the next place, for the enrolment of a candidate, a procedure is prescribed and, ordinarily, there fore, in the absence of the specification of a precise date, it would not be unreasonable to read by implication the requirement that the eligibility qualification as to age must be satisfied by a candidate on the day on which the first step in the process of enrolment is taken. Of course, it would be a question of fact to be decided in each case as to when such step was taken. Of course, it would be a question of fact to be decided in each case as to when such step was taken. Generally speaking, however, it can be safely said that if the applications for enrolment are formally invited so as to reach on or before a specified date, then the said date should be taken to signify the latest point of time with reference to which the eligibility qualification as to age should be satisfied, subject to there being as pacification of any other date in accordance with law in the formal instrument whereby the applications are invited. In cases where the procedure or the formality of inviting the applications is not followed, as in the present case, and the applications have reached the recruiting authority in any other manner, the date, if any, on which they are taken up for scrutiny may be considered to be the date with reference to which the candidate should fulfil the requirement of the age limit. If any other view, such as the one herein taken by the administration, were to be adopted, inconvenience and hardship and even absurdity may flow as a consequence. Take, for example, the case of the petitioner who was within the age limit on the day on which the recruitment process started as aforesaid but who became overage without any fault on his part by the time the long-winding process was completed and the actual occasion for his enrolment arrived. Can he be reasonably denied the enrolment solely on the ground that he is overage? Conversely, take the case of a candidate who was under age on the date on which the process of recruitment commenced but who might come within the age limit by the time the final stage in the process of recruitment is reached and thereby purported to be qualified for the enrolment. Is it conceivable to regard such a person as eligible from the beginning and to subject him to some of the steps in the process of enrolment while still under-age and to enlist him ultimately ? In the last place, the Court must construe the Rules having regard to the subject and object as well as keeping in view the consequences. The construction to be adopted must be reasonable and sensible ; it must avoid inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, which are presumed to be not intended. In the last place, the Court must construe the Rules having regard to the subject and object as well as keeping in view the consequences. The construction to be adopted must be reasonable and sensible ; it must avoid inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, which are presumed to be not intended. A candidate has no control over the time taken by the recruiting authority in completing the process of recruitment and he cannot, therefore, be denied the benefit of employment, if he is otherwise eligible, merely because the time taken in completing the process is so inordinately long that he, meanwhile, crosses the prescribed maximum age. Any act or omission on the part of the recruiting authority over which he has no control should not prejudice the candidate He cannot be compelled to do that which he cannot possibly perform, namely, be within the age limit right upto the final stage of enrolment, although he has no means to check the tardy ways, if any, in which the process for enlistment may progress 12. The fact situation in the present case may be examined now against the background aforesaid. No applications for enlistment as Constable (General Duty) are stated to have been invited. The petitioner, however, submitted an application for enrolment which was received on December 2, 1985 He was well within the prescribed age limit on that day. The date of the scrutiny of applications is not known. However, having regard to the dates on which the subsequent steps in the process of recruitment were taken, it can be safely assumed that the scrutiny took place between December, 1985 and March, N8v The petitioner was still within the prescribed age limit during this period. In the present case, however, even if the subsequent steps in the process of recruitment are taken into consideration, the petitioner was still within the age limit The eligible candidates were invited for interview by a communication dated April 3, 1986 and they were actually interviewed on April 11, 12, 1986. On both those dates, the petitioner satisfied the eligibility qualification as to age. What is still more significant and pertinent, however, is that even when the communication dated June 16, 1986. On both those dates, the petitioner satisfied the eligibility qualification as to age. What is still more significant and pertinent, however, is that even when the communication dated June 16, 1986. Annexure-PB, was issued to the petitioner directing him to send the medical certificate and yet another communication dated June 17, 1987, Annexure-PA, was sent to him informing him that he had been provisionally selected for the post in question, he was within the prescribed age limit Even if the date of the medical examination of the petitioner by the Unit Medical Officer, Shamshi, on June 28, 1986, were to be taken into consideration, the petitioner was still below 23 years on that day. With the production or obtaining of the health certificate, the procedure for enrolment came to an end, as earlier pointed out9 since the verification, inter alia, as to age is to be made after the enrolment is made. Under the circumstances aforementioned, in our opinion, the view entertained by the competent authority that the petitioner was overage at the time of his enrolment and that, therefore, he could not be enrolled is not in accordance with law. 13. True it is that the verification forms concerning the petitioner were forwarded to different authorities in the month of July, 1986 and that the compliance reports were received in the months of August/September, 1986. However, as earlier held, verification is a condition subsequent and not a condition precedent to enrolment. Under the circumstances, the delay which occurred in the process of verification could not have defeated the right of the petitioner to be enrolled pursuant to his selection on the fulfilment of the requisite eligibility qualifications including age with respect to which he had submitted an authentic proof in the shape of the matriculation examination certificate along with his application. 14. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel drew our attention to a secret Office Memorandum issued on July 2, 1982 by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, which purports to prescribe the revised procedure for verification of character and antecedents of persons selected for appointment to civil posts under the Government of India. Para 3 of the said Office Memorandum reads as follows : "Determination of suitability of a person for appointment to Government service.—Pre-enrolment verification, whether simple or detailed is a pre-requisite for appointment. Para 3 of the said Office Memorandum reads as follows : "Determination of suitability of a person for appointment to Government service.—Pre-enrolment verification, whether simple or detailed is a pre-requisite for appointment. It will be the responsibility of the appointing authority to satisfy itself about the identity and suitability of the candidate according to the prescribed criteria before making any appointment." This instruction is relid upon by the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for urging that the verification of age is not a condition subsequent but a condition precedent to the enrolment and that, therefore, the petitioner was not eligible for enrolment since by the time the verification reports in his case were received, he had crossed the age of 23. The submission deserves to be rejected on more than one ground. In the first place, although Rule 14 speaks of the verification being made in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Central Government from time to time, the instructions contained in para 3 of the Office Memorandum in question, being purely executive or administrative in character, cannot be regarded as the prescription by the Central Government of the procedure within the meaning of the said rule. Besides, such administrative directions and/or executive instructions cannot run counter to or override the statutory rules. Rule 14, as interpreted hereinabove, prescribes verification as a condition subsequent to the enrolment. The Office Memorandum to question cannot be used to supplant the said requirement and to convent it into a condition precedent. In the next place, the recruitment here is of a member of an Armed Force since the post in question is that of a Constable (General Duty) in the S.S.B. Organisation. The Office Memorandum issues instructions which are intended to govern the appointment of candidates to civil posts. They are, therefore, clearly inapplicable to the enlistment of a Constable (General Duty in the S. S. B. Force. In the last place, the instructions in question, if properly read, refer to the pre-enrolment verification and they have to be read down as applicable only when the pre-enrolment verification is the pre requisite under the relevant recruitment rules. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, reliance upon the Office Memorandum in question cannot help the respondents. 15. In the last place, the instructions in question, if properly read, refer to the pre-enrolment verification and they have to be read down as applicable only when the pre-enrolment verification is the pre requisite under the relevant recruitment rules. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, reliance upon the Office Memorandum in question cannot help the respondents. 15. Before parting with the case, it may be mentioned as and by way of a preliminary objection a submission has been made in the affidavit in rely that this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate or try the dispute raised by the petitioner with respect to his enlistment since the jurisdiction in that respect now vests in the Central Administrative Tribunal as a result of the enactment of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) The objection has been raised, merely to be rejected outright. Section 2 of the Act in terms provides that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to any member of the navavel, military or air force or of any other armed force of the Union. It is not in dispute that the post of Constable (General Duty) in the S.S.B, Organisation is a post borne on an Armed Force of the Union. Any dispute, therefore, relating to the recruitment to the said post does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition succeeds and it is allowed. A writ will issue to the respondents directing them to enroll the petitioner as Constable (General Duty) upon his reporting to the Commandant, Group Centre, SSB, Shamshi, Kullu, H. P., on or before December 15, 1987. A direction in these terms is being issued because it is not in dispute that except with respect to age there was no other eligibility qualification for the enlistment which the petitioner did not satisfy and that the verification reports duly received do not contain anything adverse to the petitioner. The writ will further direct that the petitioner will be deemed to have been enrolled on and from the date on which any of the candidates interviewed on April 11, 12, 1986 was first enlisted in point of time. The writ will further direct that the petitioner will be deemed to have been enrolled on and from the date on which any of the candidates interviewed on April 11, 12, 1986 was first enlisted in point of time. The direction aforementioned will not, however, entitle the petitioner to claim any monetary benefits and will be operative only for the purposes of reckoning his seniority and benefits other than monetary benefits. 17. Rule is made absolute accordingly with a further direction that the petitioner is entitled to the costs of the position which are qualified at Rs. 250. The costs will be paid to the petitioner alongwith his remuneration for the first month after he joint duty. Rule made absolute.