JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - The petitioner challenges the order dated 6-10-1981 passed by the Deputy Director of Technical Education U.P. Kanpur declining to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner as a lecturer in Commerce in Town Polytechnic, Ballia. The order states that the petitioner did not possess the requisite minimum qualification prescribed for that post. 2. The petitioner contends that the Director was wrong in taking the view that he was not eligible for the post. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner did possess both the minimum academic qualification as well as the other conditions such as the minimum age prescribed for appointment to the post. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the affidavits exchanged between the parties we find no merit in the petition. Annexure - 5 to the petition sets out the conditions of eligibility prescribed for appointment to the post of a lecturer in Commerce. The minimum academic qualifications prescribed are a Master's Degree in Commerce plus two years teaching/practical experience in the subject. The age limit prescribed for the appointment to the post in question is 21 years (minimum) and 40 years (maximum). According to the conditions laid down it is apparent that the age of candidates has to be determined with reference to 30.6.81. 4. The petitioners' selection has been cancelled both on the ground that he did not possess the requisite minimum qualification as well as that he did not come with the age limit prescribed under the rules. 5. As the petitioner possessed the Master's Degree in Commerce, it is apparent that this selection was cancelled on the ground that he did not possess the other minimum qualifications, namely, two years teaching/practical experience in the subject. Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess any teaching experience whatever, He,however, asserts in the petition that by virtue of the fact that he was enrolled with ",e Board of Studies of the Institute of Chartered Accountancy, New Delhi and he had received practical training under Habibullah and Company, Chartered Accountant, Gorakhpur from 1.6.1979 till 28.7.1981. His training in that capacity should be Mated as practical experience. 6. We are unable to agree. The certificate granted to .he petitioner states that the petitioner has been registered in the records of the Company as a clerk. His training in that capacity should be Mated as practical experience. 6. We are unable to agree. The certificate granted to .he petitioner states that the petitioner has been registered in the records of the Company as a clerk. It further states that he would be entitled to appear in the Intermediate Examination to be held November 1981 and that the first part of study material was being sent to him by separate registered post which should be completed in accordance with the requirement of the Board of Studies. Lastly, it mentions that the petitioner was studying for other courses. The respondents have rightly declined to treat this training as furnishing evidence of any practical experience. From the contents of the certificate relied on by lie petitioner and from the Governments made in the petition, we find no ground for taking a contrary view. There is nothing to indicate that the nature of training which lie petitioners claim to have undergone invested him with any practical experience so is to comply with the conditions laid down in the rules. Practical experience, to our mind, implies actual work experience in that field or subject. More study or even training cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as practical experience in that field or subject.The Director of Technical Education was hence right in holding that the petitioner did not possess the prescribe minimum qualification. 7. The petitioner also did not come within the age limits prescribed under the Rules. According to the petitioner he was born on 7.7.60. He was thus clearly less than 21 years on 30.6.81. The cancellation of the petitioners selection, therefore, on the ground that he did not come within the prescribed age limit cannot thus be regarded as unjustified. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the age of the petitioner should have been computed with reference to the date on which selections were held which according to him took place on 20.7.81. We cannot agree. Where the rules lay down a definite date with reference to which the age of candidates has to be .imputed, it is not permissible to calculate the age of the candidate with reference to Gie date of selection or appointment or any other date fortutiously selected. It is a common feature of selections to indicate a precise date for computing the age of candidate. It is a common feature of selections to indicate a precise date for computing the age of candidate. This is done to avoid an element of uncertainty entering into the matter of it lection. Some might contend it is the date of appointment with reference to which wage of candidate ought to be considered for deciding whether they fall within the prescribed age limits. Others may argue that the relevant date is the date of selections. tell others might say it is the date for the making of application. 9. The Director was, therefore, right in taking the view that the petitioner asked the essential minimum qualifications as well as that he did not come within the prescribed age limit. 10. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed but we make no order as to