G. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS special appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order dated 22. 5. 2001 of the learned single Judge by which the writ petition filed by him was dismissed. ( 2 ) THE appellant was head master of a primary school and his date of birth is 1. 7. 1941. He received a notice dated 24. 2. 2001 that he would retire from the service on 30. 6. 2001. The appellant filed a representation against the notice stating that he was entitled to continue in service till 30. 6. 2002. This representation was rejected by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari by the order dated 19. 4. 2001. The appellant then filed the writ petition challenging the aforesaid order, which as already stated, was dismissed on 22. 5. 2001. ( 3 ) THE claim of the appellant is founded on Rule 29 of the U. P. Basic Education (Teachers)Service Rules, 1981 which is being reproduced below : "29. Age of superannuation.--Every teacher shall retire from service in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years : provided that a teacher who retires during an academic session (July 1 to June 30) shall continue to work till the end of the academic session, that is June 30 and such period of service will be deemed as extended period of employment. " ( 4 ) SRI S. K. Verma, learned senior counsel for the appellant has contended that as the date of birth of the appellant is 1. 7. 1941, his retirement was due on 1. 7. 2001 and as the retirement took place during the academic session, he is entitled to continue till the end of the academic session, i. e. , till June 30, 2002. We are unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel. The appellant having attained the age of superannuation of 60 years on June 30, 2001 and as per the first part of Rule 29, he will retire from service in the afternoon of June 30, itself. The retirement of the appellant does not take place on 1st July which is his date of birth. It takes place on the last day of the preceding month in which he attained the age of 60 years, i. e. , on June 30. The retirement of the appellant does not take place on 1st July which is his date of birth. It takes place on the last day of the preceding month in which he attained the age of 60 years, i. e. , on June 30. Since the appellant does not retire during the academic session of 1. 7. 2001 to 30. 6. 2002, he is not entitled to continue in service in the aforesaid academic session. ( 5 ) SRI Verma has placed strong reliance on Prabhu Dayal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1986 SC 1948 , wherein it was held as follows : ". . . In calculating a persons age, the day of his birth must be counted as a whole day and he attains the specified age on the day preceding the anniversary of his birth day. The age limits for candidates for direct recruitment to the Rajasthan Administrative Service and other allied services is prescribed by Rule 11b. Rule 11b provides that a candidate must have attained the age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of 28 years on the first day of january next following the last day fixed for receipt of application. In the instant case, was january 1, 1983. Obviously first day of January next following that day would be January 1, 1984. The question was whether a candidate whose date of birth was 2. 1. 1956 had attained the age of 28 years on 1. 1. 1984 and hence was disqualified. Held, that the candidate was disqualified for direct recruitment to the Rajasthan Administrative service. A legal day commences at 12 Oclock midnight and continues until the same hour the following night. It is, therefore, clear that the candidate having been born on January 2, 1956, he had not only attained the age of 28 years but also completed the same at 12 Oclock on the midnight of January 1, 1984, On the next day, i. e. , on January 2, 1984 the appellant would be one day more than 28 years. . . " ( 6 ) IN our opinion, the law laid down by the Supreme Court does not at all support the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and on the contrary, it goes against him. . . " ( 6 ) IN our opinion, the law laid down by the Supreme Court does not at all support the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and on the contrary, it goes against him. It has been clearly laid therein that a person attains specified age on the day preceding the anniversary of his birth day. ( 7 ) AN identical controversy relating to a teacher whose date of birth was 1st July was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management Janta Inter College v. Sheel chand Tyagi, 1993 ALR 546, and It was held that as the teacher was born on 1. 7. 1933, he attained the age of 60 years on 30. 6. 1993 and as such, he was not entitled to the benefit of his continuance in service till the end of next academic session (1. 7. 1993 to 30. 6. 1994 ). In Prabhu dayal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1986 SC 1948 committee of Management Janta Inter College v. Sheel Chand Tyagi, 1993 ALR 546ram Dulal V. Director Basic Shiksha, U. P. and Ors. , (1994)3 UPLBEC 1538, the learned single Judge considered the case of teacher governed by the same rule, namely. U. P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 and held that a teacher whose date of birth was 1st July would complete 60 years on 30th June of the relevant year and would retire on the same day. He was entitled to get the benefit of continuance in service in the next academic year. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken in the aforesaid decisions of this Court. ( 8 ) IN view of the discussion made above, we find no merit in this special appeal which is hereby dismissed summarily at the admission stage. .