Judgment :- The point that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is concerning the interpretation of the word ‘year’ used in Rule 183 (1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The brief facts of the case are the following. 2. The first respondent-Bank issued Ext.P1 notification, inviting applications for appointment to various posts under it, on 11.02.2006. The petitioner applied for three posts viz. Data Entry Operator, Appraiser and Attender, which were notified as per Ext.P1. Her date of birth is 28.05.1968, as evident from Ext.P2. Going by Ext.P1, the petitioner is over-aged. As per that notification, the candidates must be between 18 and 37 years of age, as on 01.01.2006. The petitioner submits, the said prescription of age limit in Ext.P1, is illegal and contrary to Rule 183(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. Therefore, this Writ Petition is filed, seeking a declaration that the rejection of her application is illegal. She also challenges the contained in Ext.P1 to the effect that the candidates must be between 18 and 37 years of age, as on 01.01.2006. 3. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the respondents also. Pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the petitioner was allowed to take part in the selection process. The point to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of Rule 183 of the Rules. Rule 183 reads as follows: “183. Age limit:- A candidate for appointment by direct recruitment must have completed 18 years and must not have completed 37 years of age on the first day of April of the year in which the applications for appointment are invited; Provided that the upper age limit shall be raised by 5 years in the case of candidates belonging to any of the Schedule Castes/Scheduled Tribe or adult member of such caste/tribes and their children when such adult members are converted to other religions and by three years in the case of candidates belonging to any of the Other Backward Classes and by three years in the case of candidates who ex-service men. Provided further that in the case of applicants who are employees of Co-operative Societies for appointment in the Apex Societies and other Societies having one or more districts as area of operation, the maximum age limit shall be 50 years Provided also that in the case of applicants who are physically handicapped persons, the upper age limit be raised by 10 years.” The word ‘year’ is defined in Section 2(u) of the Co-operative Societies Act, which reads as follows: “(u) “Year” means the period commencing on the first day of April of any year and ending with 31st of March of the succeeding year or in the case of any registered society or class of registered societies, the accounts of which are made upto any other date with the previous sanction of the Registrar, the year ending with such date.” 5. Rule 183(1) was amended on 02.05.2000, substituting the word ‘April’ in the place of ‘July’. Apparently, the said amendment was made, to make it in tune with the amendment introduced to Section 2(u) of the Co-operative Societies Act, concerning the word ‘year’. Originally, ‘year’ was defined as the period from the first day of July of any year and ending on 30th of June of the succeeding year. When the amended Rule 183 (1) of the Rules and the amended Section 2(u) of the Co-operative Societies Act are read together, it is clear that the ‘year’ mentioned in Rule 183, is the Co-operative year. Since the notification was published in February, 2006, the age limit should be reckoned with reference to April, 2005. If that be so, in February, 2006, she is eligible to be considered for appointment to the posts, for which she has applied. 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, declaring that the prescription of age limit in Ext.P1, is contrary to Rule 183 of the Rules and the petitioner is eligible to apply for appointment to the posts under the first respondent, notified as per Ext.P1. Her participation in the selection process, pursuant to the interim order of this Court, shall be treated as regular. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.