A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE notification being No. (258-Edn (A)) / (18-2/86) dated 9th April, 1986 of the Education Department, Government of West Bengal was assailed by the writ petitioner in the court below with success and the learned Judge has struck down the said notification. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties we are however satisfied, and this we say with due respect to the learned trial Judge, that the judgement of the learned trial Judge was erroneous. The impugned notification dated 9th April, 1986 from the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal to the Director of Public Instruction relates to "the determination of seniority of the typists of Education Directorate who were employed in Government service before attaining 18 (eighteen) years of age" and it was notified, in consultation with the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal that seniority of an employee cannot be affected on the ground that he/she was a minor at the time of appointment". ( 2 ) TAKING it as a matter of first impression, we do not find any thing unreasonable, illegal, unfair or unjust in this impugned order and therefore we have failed, and this again we say with respect, to understand how the learned trial Judge thought it fit to invoke the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Royappa or Maneka and other post-Maneka decisions. As we see it, appointment of a person below the age of 18 is not illegal. Reference in this connection may be made to the relevant provisions of the Indian Contract Act which makes it unmistakably clear that appointment of a minor as an agent is perfectly illegal. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner has also urged that the petitioners are not interested in challenging the legality of the appointment of the Typists who were appointed at below the age of 18 years. But his concession apart, as we have already indicated, we have not been able to find anything in the general law under which it can be ruled that appointment of a servant below the age of 18 is illegal. But his concession apart, as we have already indicated, we have not been able to find anything in the general law under which it can be ruled that appointment of a servant below the age of 18 is illegal. If once we hold that the appointment is not illegal, we find no reason to hold that the Government have acted unreasonably, illegally, unfairly or in any way contrary to the principles of justice in holding that the entire period of service put in by an employee, though appointed before the attainment of the age of 18 years, shall be taken into account in determining his seniority. Since the appointment before the age of 18 is not being challenged as impermissible and we have also found to reason to doubt its legality, it would, in our view, rather be unreasonable, unjust and unfair to exclude the period upto the date of attainment of that age for the purpose of seniority or other matters relating to service, even though the appointees have in fact put in service during that period. We are rather inclined to hold that the principle in Royappa and Maneka and Kasturi Lal and all that mandating every State action to be reasonable, right, fair and just, would militate against such exclusion. ( 3 ) OUR attention has been drawn to the Notification No. 645 Mis. dated 21st May, 1941 labelled as "rules for recruitment of typists in the Secretariat and in certain other Government offices", wherein it has been provided that a person in order to be qualified for the appointment as Typist "must be less than 25 years". There is no minimum age limit in that Notification and that being so it cannot be urged with any amount of plausibility that the appointment of any person below 18 would have been contrary to this Notification or otherwise illegal. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the writ petitioners drew our attention to Rule 17 of the West Bengal Service (Death-cum-retirement benefit) Rules 1971, the proviso whereof provides that service rendered before attaining the age of 18 years shall not count except for compensation and gratuity. We are inclined to hold that this provision, far from supporting the contention of the learned Counsel, would rather go against him. We are inclined to hold that this provision, far from supporting the contention of the learned Counsel, would rather go against him. If the appointment at the age below 18 was illegal at least upto the period of attainment of 18 years by the employee concerned, there was absolutely no necessity in providing under Rule 17 that the said period shall not count. The Rules would rather go to show that for purposes not covered by the Rules, the period of service, even before attainment of age 18, can count and is not liable to be excluded. The learned Counsel has also drawn our attention to some Notification dated 16th March, 1962 wherein it appears that it has been generally stated that the age limit for lower division clerical service shall be "18 to 23". It has however been categorically stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State Government that this Memo dated 16. 3. 1962 is not applicable in regard to the recruitment of Typist inasmuch as there is special provision for recruitment of Typist as contained in notification dated 21. 3. 41, which does not contain provision specifying the minimum age limit. The Notification of 1941 was made under the relevant provisions of the preceding Constitution Act of 1935 and must and cannot but continue in force under the provision of Article 372 of the Constitution, until altered or repealed by a competent authority. We have not been shown anything to indicate that this notification of 1941 has been affected, altered or replaced by any competent authority and the affidavit of the Government on this point, as noted above, really clinches the issue. ( 5 ) THE learned trial Judge has also thought that this impugned order dated 9th April, 1986 is also hit by Article 14. We do not see how. If the Typists similarly circumstanced viz. Typists appointed below age of 18, were differently treated, a question of discrimination and/or unequal treatment could have been made out. It is nowhere the case of the writ petitioners that they or any Typist appointed below the age of 18 have or has been denied the benefit of the 1986 notification. If the Typists similarly circumstanced viz. Typists appointed below age of 18, were differently treated, a question of discrimination and/or unequal treatment could have been made out. It is nowhere the case of the writ petitioners that they or any Typist appointed below the age of 18 have or has been denied the benefit of the 1986 notification. Reliance has also been placed by the learned trial Judge on a notification of the Transport Department, Government of West Bengal dated 7th June, 1978 where under it appears to have been decided that "the length of the service rendered below the prescribed minimum age for recruitment to a service/cadre should not be recognised for any purpose whatsoever". We must however note that the very same order makes it clear that it would not apply in a case where "such appointment can regularly be made" under the relevant rules. Apart from the fact that this Notification of the Transport Department cannot ex proprio vigore apply to the employees of the Education Directorate, the order of the Transport Department itself makes it clear that where the appointment below the alleged prescribed minimum age could be regularly made, the order shall not apply. As we have already indicated, under the notification of 1941, appointment below age of 18 could and cannot be termed as illegal. That being so this notification referred to and relied on by the learned trial Judge, has really no relevance. If the typists of this Transport Department were before us alleging that while the typists of the Education Department were being given some extra privilege under the 1986-Notification, they in the Transport Department were denied such privilege, the matter might have assumed some significance. But that is not the case here. ( 6 ) WE accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgement of the learned trial Judge and hold the impugned order dated 9th April, 1986 to be legal and valid and would direct the State Government and others Concerned to proceed in accordance therewith in determining the seniority of the Typist of the Education Directorate, unless the same is altered or replaced in due course of law by a competent authority. The writ petition filed before the court below would accordingly stand dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.