ORDER 1. The petitioner is a Corporal in the Indian Air Force. The Union Pubic Service Commission, 1st respondent herein, issued Examination Notice No.10/2005, dated 07.05.2005, for the purpose of recruiting 194 Assistant Commandants in the Central Police Forces (CPF) viz., BSF, CRPF, ITBP and SSB (Sashastra Seema Bal). The recruitment procedure comprised of holding of written, physical and medical tests. The candidates, who are already in service, are also made eligible to submit applications. The required conditions of eligibility and educational qualifications were stipulated. So far as the age limit is concerned, it was mentioned that a candidate must have attained the age of 20 years and must not have crossed 25 years by 01.08.2005. However, relaxation of 5 years, 3 years and 5 years respectively was provided in favour of the candidates belonging to S.Cs & S.Ts, O.B.Cs and Central Government Servants & Ex-Servicemen. 2. The petitioner submitted his application, through proper channel. He was permitted to take the written test and he was declared qualified therein. At the subsequent stage of selection process, a doubt was entertained by the 1st respondent, about the eligibility of the petitioner, with reference to his age. The petitioner pleaded that he is entitled to be extended the benefit of relaxation of five years and the 1st respondent required the petitioner to file an affidavit, to that effect. The same was complied with. The matter was, thereafter, referred to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, 3rd respondent herein. On a communication received from the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent rejected the candidature of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 3. On behalf of respondents 1 and 3, separate counter affidavits are filed. According to them, the notification is clear in its purport, to the effect that the benefit of relaxation of age limit is available to the Central Government Servants and the Ex-Servicemen, and that the petitioner does not fall into any of those categories, being a member of Armed Forces i.e., Indian Air Force. 4. Sri Paravastu Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the notification issued by the 1st respondent, it is clearly stated that the relaxation of age limit by five years is extended to the Central Government Servants and Ex-Servicemen and in that view of the matter, the same cannot be denied to the petitioner. 4. Sri Paravastu Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the notification issued by the 1st respondent, it is clearly stated that the relaxation of age limit by five years is extended to the Central Government Servants and Ex-Servicemen and in that view of the matter, the same cannot be denied to the petitioner. He submits that the interpretation placed by the respondents, on the Clause contained in the notification is incorrect, apart from being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, leaned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, submit that the petitioner cannot claim the relaxation of age limit, as a matter of right. According to them, the notification restricts the benefit of relaxation of age to Central Government Servants and Ex- Servicemen, and the petitioner is not entitled to the said benefit. 6. The fact that the application of the petitioner was entertained and that he was permitted to take the written test, discloses that he was found otherwise eligible, to be considered for recruitment to the post of Assistant Commandant, subject to further verification. The present controversy is about his eligibility with reference to his age. Admittedly, he has crossed 25 years as on the relevant date. Had the notification not provided for any relaxation, the occasion to verify the matter any further would not have arisen. Having stipulated the maximum age limit as 25 years, as on 01.08.2005, the 1st respondent, obviously, on the basis of the instructions received from the 3rd respondent provided for relaxation of age limit. The relevant Clause in the notification reads as under: 3(III) Age Limits: (a) A candidate must have attained the age of 20 years and must not have attained the age of 25 years on 1st August, 2005 i.e. he/she must have been born not earlier than 2nd August, 1980 and not later than 1st August, 1985. (b) The upper age limit prescribed above will be relaxable. (i) upto a maximum of five years if a candidate belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. (ii) upto a maximum of three years in the case of candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes who are eligible to avail of reservation applicable to such candidates. (b) The upper age limit prescribed above will be relaxable. (i) upto a maximum of five years if a candidate belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. (ii) upto a maximum of three years in the case of candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes who are eligible to avail of reservation applicable to such candidates. (iii) upto a maximum of five years for Central Government Servants in accordance with the existing instructions of the Central Government. Ex-Servicemen will also be eligible for this relaxation. However, the total relaxation claimed on account of Government Service will be limited to five years. (iv) omitted. 7. The petitioner claims the benefit under Clause (3)(III)(b)(iii). The expression "Central Government Servant" is explained under Note-III as under: Note III: The term "Central Government Servants" in Para 3(III)(b)(iii) above will apply to persons who are defined as "Government Servants" in the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 as amended from time to time. 8. In the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the expression "Government Servant" is defined as under: 2(h) "Government Servant" means a person who- (i) is a member of a Service or holds a civil post under the Union, and includes any such person on foreign service or who services are temporarily placed at the disposal of a State Government, or a local or other authority; (ii) is a member of a Service or holds a civil post under a State Government and who services are temporarily placed at the disposal of eth Central Government; (iii) is in the service of a local or other authority and whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Central Government. 9. In the processing of the application, the 1st respondent entertained a doubt as to the eligibility of the petitioner to be extended the benefit of age relaxation. Obviously, to be fair to the petitioner, the 1st respondent sought clarification as to whether the petitioner holds the civilian post in defence services or the combatant post. The reason is that the civilian posts in defence services were also brought under the purview of civil services of Union of India. The petitioner also did not leave any uncertainty in the matter and clearly stated that he does not hold any civilian post in Air Force. The reason is that the civilian posts in defence services were also brought under the purview of civil services of Union of India. The petitioner also did not leave any uncertainty in the matter and clearly stated that he does not hold any civilian post in Air Force. The matter was referred to the 3rd respondent, who in turn, clarified through the letter, dated 08.09.2005, that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of age relaxation. The said decision was communicated to the petitioner, through the impugned proceedings, dated 28.08.2006. 10. There would have been some basis for the view taken by the respondents, had the relaxation been restricted to civil servants, pure and simple. The posts, in question, are in para military forces. The respondents were of the view that apart from Government servants, Ex-Servicemen can also be considered for those posts. Obviously to attract more persons from those categories, they provided for relaxation of age limit. No where, it is indicated that the persons serving the armed forces are not eligible to apply. In fact, the petitioner's application was considered and he was permitted to appear in the written test. When the benefit of relaxation of age limit was extended to the Central Government Servants as well as Ex-Servicemen, it is un-understandable as to how a person serving Armed Forces cannot be extended the benefit thereof. On the other hand, he stands on a higher footing in comparison and if recruited, he would add to the strength of the para military force. 11. If a literal interpretation is placed on the relevant clause, one may gain the impression that the persons serving the Armed Forces are not covered by clause 3(III)(b)(iii). The clause covers Government Servants and Ex-servicemen. The term "Government Servant" takes in its fold, all the civil posts in the Central Civil Service. The expression "civil post" is defined under clause (c) of the Rules, to include not only the civilian posts, but also corresponding employees in Defence Services. The result is that the clause in the notification covers civil servants, persons holding civil posts in the Armed Forces and Ex- servicemen. The only category left out, would be, of the persons holding combatant posts in the Armed Forces. The result is that the clause in the notification covers civil servants, persons holding civil posts in the Armed Forces and Ex- servicemen. The only category left out, would be, of the persons holding combatant posts in the Armed Forces. If one takes into account, the nature of posts, for which recruitment is undertaken, it may look absurd that the persons who are most suited to handle the posts are favoured with a serious disadvantage, when compared to other persons who, in a way, can be said to be on a lesser footing. 12. Law recognizes what is known as "exceptional construction" to avoid the absurdity resulting in literal interpretation of any provision. The Chancellor of England, in Re Maryon-Wilson's Will Trusts (1968) Ch.268, per Ungoed-Thomas J. at p.282) explained the law on the subject as under: "If the Court is to avoid a statutory result that flouts common sense and justice, it must do so not by disregarding the statute or overriding it, but by interpreting it in accordance with the judicially presumed parliamentary concern for common sense and justice." 13. An instance of such construction was provided in Adler v. George (1964) 2 Q.B.7). The provision of law, in question, made a person liable to be punished, if he was found in the vicinity or neighbourhood of the Royal Air Force Station. A person, who entered the precincts of the Air Force Station, when sought to be prosecuted, took the defence that it is only a person, who is in vicinity or neighbourhood, and not within the premises, that is liable to be punished. Though strict and grammatical interpretation is to be placed on penal provisions, the Queens Bench opined that placing of such an interpretation on the concerned clause, would lead to absurdity, and accordingly, punished the accused. In India also, the principle is recognized by the Supreme Court. Way back in 1954, in Shamrao v. District Magistrate, Thana1, the Court held as under: "The object of the construction of a statute being to ascertain the will of the legislature, it may be presumed that neither injustice nor absurdity was intended. In India also, the principle is recognized by the Supreme Court. Way back in 1954, in Shamrao v. District Magistrate, Thana1, the Court held as under: "The object of the construction of a statute being to ascertain the will of the legislature, it may be presumed that neither injustice nor absurdity was intended. If, therefore, literal interpretation would produce such a result, and the language admits of an interpretation which would avoid it, then such an interpretation may be adopted." In Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh2, the Supreme Court observed, "Where the language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words, and even the structure of the sentence." Authorities can be multiplied on the subject. This court is of the view that Clause 3(III)(b)(iii) warrants similar interpretation. It could never have been the intention of the respondents to keep the most relevant and important section of persons outside the clause, providing for relaxation of age. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of relaxation of age. 14. The petitioner, however, prayed for his being sent to training straight away, obviously, bypassing the stages of selection, that have taken place thus far. Even if the refusal on the part of the respondents to process the case of the petitioner beyond the particular stage, cannot be sustained in law, he cannot be relieved from the necessity of undergoing the other parts of the selection process. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be extended the benefit of relaxation of age limit, in terms of Clause 3(III)(b)(iii) of Examination Notice No.10/2005, dated 07.05.2005, and he shall be considered for selection, in accordance with law. The respondent shall conclude the remaining parts of the selection process, in respect of the petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs.