Judgment S. B. Sanyal, J. 1. Was the petitioner beyond thirty years of age on 1st august, 1985, he having born on 1-8-1955, so as to exclude him from being considered for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor on the basis of competitive examination held in the year 1985 conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission is the moot question in this writ petition. 2. Facts.-on the 27th March, 1985, Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the commission) brought out an advertisement for appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor. Apart from the educational qualification the age requirement in clause 3 of the advertisement was, general candidate should be thirty years of age on 1st August, 1965 and thirty-five years for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes. It was also the requirement of the advertisement that the candidate should be graduate in law and have to face written examination of which four will be compulsory subjects and two optional subjects (Annexure-1 ). In response to the said Notification the petitioner filled up the application form enclosing a copy of his Matriculation certificate showing his date of birth as 1-8-1985. The petitioner was issued an Admit Card after scrutiny of the required papers and he was assigned Roll No.01585. The petitioner appeared in the examination in all the subjects. After completion of the written test, vide letter dated 27-5-1987 the petitioner was directed by the Commission to appear at the Interview and the viva-voce test on 17-6-1987 at 8.00 a. m. (Annexure-3 ). The petitioner, thereafter, was supplied with mark sheet of his written examination but he was not allotted any marks for the viva-voce test. In the remarks column it was noted over-aged. The aforesaid communication is under the signature of the Under secretary of the Commission dated 17-7-1987 (Annexure-4) The petitioner filed his representation to the Chairman of the Commission wherein he had contended that he was exactly 30 years of age on 1-8-1985, therefore he was not over-aged as remarked by the Commission at the time of interview. This was followed by large number of representations; the last one of which is dated 25-11-1987 (Annexure-5 ). 3. This was followed by large number of representations; the last one of which is dated 25-11-1987 (Annexure-5 ). 3. The petitioner has moved this court for issuance of an appropriate writ directing publication of his result of viva-voce test, on the basis of the marks obtained in written examination and viva-voce, fix his actual position among the successful candidates, for consideration for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor on the basis of 1985 competitive examination. In short, the petitioner prays for quashing of the remark "over aged" entered in the communication by the Under secretary of the Commission on 17-7-1987 (Annexure-4 ). The petitioner has also enclosed his Matriculation certificate showing his date of birth as 1-8-1955 (Annexure-6 ). No counter-affidavit has been filed either by the State of Bihar or by respondent No.2, the Commission. 4. Dr. jha, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that the commission has gone hey-wire in disqualifying the petitioner as being over-aged on 1-8-1985. The petitioner, according to the learned counsel, was just 30 years on 1-8-1985 completely conforming age eligibility of a general candidate for participation in the competitive examination and consideration for the post he applied for. The respondent-commission has erroneously adjudged him as more than 30 years on 1-8-1985. Thus, denying him an opportunity for consideration and in so doing the petitioners fundamental right, as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of (he Constitution, has been abridged. That the petitioner was issued an admit Card to participate in the competitive examination on Commission being fully satisfied after perusal of the application form and all other relevant documents enclosed therewith including the Matriculation certificate. The petitioner was never stopped in appearing in all the six subjects by the Commission. After having qualified in the written examination he was also asked to participate in the viva-voce. The viva voce examination of the petitioner continued for about thirty minutes, la these circumstances, the Commission cannot turn round and refuse to consider the case of the petitioner as being over-aged i. e. not fulfilling the requirement of the advertisement. Learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, has contended that the Commission has rightly acted because on 1-8-1985 the petitioner was more than 30 years of age. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner attained the age of 30 years a day earlier i. e. midnight of 31st July, 1985. Learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, has contended that the Commission has rightly acted because on 1-8-1985 the petitioner was more than 30 years of age. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner attained the age of 30 years a day earlier i. e. midnight of 31st July, 1985. Learned Government Advocate has further submitted that the form of application is considered by the office of the Commission and, therefore, any omission on the part of the Ministerial Staff of the Commission will not stop the Commission from correcting a mistake committed by the Secretariat of the commission. 5. I find considerable substance in both the submissions of Dr. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. The most relevant question for decision of the first point raised by the learned counsel is ; could the petitioner celebrate his 30th birth anniversary on 31st July, 1985, his date of birth being 1-8-1955 Certainly not. His birth anniversary will always be on 1st August, 1985 when only he attains a particular age. The common law principle is that when a question arises when a particular person attains a particular age expressed in year, it is commencement of the relevant anniversary of his date of birth. It is true that in england this has been so reckoned in view of Sec.9 (1) of the Family Law reform Act, 1969, In India, our attention has not been drawn to any Act laying down principle for computation of age in any other manner. This is the common law principle which is applied for determination of age of children and young persons under the various criminal act as also pensionery benefits under the various Service Statutes in England. (See Halsburys Laws of England, 4th edition, Vol.11 ; paragraph 119 ; Vol.24 paragraph 402), The learned Government advocate tried to assail the said principle by referring to Article 217 of the constitution of India relating to appointment and retirement of Judges of the high Court as also by reference to the Compendium brought out by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs as to when a particular Judge of a particular high Court retires on attaining the age of 62 years To illustrate his point, learned Government Advocate drew our attention 10 the date of retirement of the Chief Justiec B. P. Jha and Hon ble Justice Ram Naresh Thakur. Both of whose date of birth, as published in the said Compendium, was 2-1-1926 and they were retired on 2-1-1988 From this he contends that the Hon ble Judges, referred to above, were more than 62 years of age on 2-l-1988. Oh this anaogy he has submitted that on 1-8-1985 the petitioner was more than 30 years of age. 6. I find fault in this argument of the learned Government Advocate. Article 217 of the Constitution of India envisage every Judge of High Court shall be appointed. . . . . . and shall hold office. . . . . . until he attains the age of 62 years. what does the word "until he attains the age of 62 years" mean falls for consideration. The dictionary meaning of the word "until" is (See Oxford Universal dictionary, Vol. II, page 2315, Onward till (time specified or indicated); upto the time of (an action, occurrence etc) ; Before (specified time ). Blacks Law dictionary, 5th Edition, define the word "until" upto tims of; a word of limitation, used ordinarily to restrict that which precedes to what immediately follows it, and its office is to fix some point of time or some event upon the arrival or occurrence of which what preceds will cease to exist (Empire Oil and Refining company V/s. Babson, 182 Oklahoma 336= 77 Pacific Reporter, 2nd Secies 662, 684. The fallacy of the argument of the Government Advocate, therefore, is quite manifest. The words "until he attains the age of 62 years" will therefore, mean immediately before the attainment of 62 years of age. In other words, upon the arrival or occurrence of which what precedes. As such Hon ble the chief Justice B. P. Jha and Hon ble Mr. Justice Ram Naresh Thakur committed office in the mid-night of 1-1-1988 since they attained the age of 62 years on 2-1-1988. Sec.9 of the General Clauses Act as also Sec.12 of tha Limitation act also provides some guideline in computing time. 7. In my opinion, therefore, a person attains a particular age at the commencement of the relevant anniversary of the date of his birth. The petitioner, therefore, will celebrate his 30th birth day anniversary on 1-8-1985. This is the custom, practice from time immemorial in every part of the universe. 7. In my opinion, therefore, a person attains a particular age at the commencement of the relevant anniversary of the date of his birth. The petitioner, therefore, will celebrate his 30th birth day anniversary on 1-8-1985. This is the custom, practice from time immemorial in every part of the universe. I, therefore, hold that the petitioner was just 30 years of age on 1-8-1985 and not over age. The petitioner will complete his 30th birth anniversary in the mid-night of 1-8-1985. Minutes and hours are not taken into consideration for these purposes inasmuch under general law where a party is given time to do an act he is entitled to do that during the course of that day. In other words, that date is not excluded. 8. There is also great substance in the second submission of Dr. Jha. It was the duty of the commission to scrutinise the form filled up by the candidati to find out whether it was in order. Before issuance of the Admit Card it was the duty of the Commission to see that the form complied with all the requirements. If the commission did not take care to scrutinise the application and allowed the petitioner to appear in the examination, they will be stopped from cancelling the petitioners candidature In the circumstances of this case, this inaction on the part of the commission will act as an estoppel by Encouragement of Acquiescence. See the case of Sri Krishnana V/s. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 . 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I issue a writ of mandamus directing the commission to immediately publish the result of viva-voce examination of the petitioner and the marks obtained by him in the said examination and to fix his actual position among the successful candidates for the post of Assistant Public prosecutor on the basis of 1985 Competitive Examination after taking into consideration the marks obtained by the petitioner in the written test and viva-voce examination and to consider his case for appointment, if he is found eligible. further quash the remark "over-aged" as contained in the letter of communication of the Commission (Annexure-4 ). 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as above, with costs. Petition allowed.