JUDGMENT Manmohan Sarin, J.:- Petitioner Naresh Chander Garg is aggrieved by the order dated 10th July, 1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing the O.A No. 1661/1992 filed by him. Petitioner in the O.A had challenged the order dated 6th June, 1991 by which the respondents had communicated their decision not to appoint him as Superintendent E/M Grade-II or on an equivalent post. 2. Facts in brief are: (i) Petitioner had joined the Military Engineering Service (in short MES) on 1st January, 1974. His date of birth is 15th August, 1945. Petitioner had completed a Diploma Course in Electrical Engineering from the Board of Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh prior to his employment on 1st November, 1969. Subsequently, in 1974, he also completed Diploma in Civil Engineering from the Board of Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh. (ii) During the year 1981, interviews were held by the respondents for the post of Supdt E/M Grade-II. Petitioner appeared for interview as a Departmental candidate. He was selected for the said post. A communication dated 16th December, 1981 was sent to him by the respondents in the following terms: "RECRUITMENT IN THE MES: SUPDT E/M GDE-II 1. Reference your interview and test on 19 May, 81 at this HQ. 2. You stand selected for appointment as Supdt E/M Gde- II. 3. Please attend this office immediately to complete the Character Verification Roll Forms for submission to the local civil authorities for verification which is prerequisite. 4. After the verification of Character Verification Rolls, you will be considered for appointment in order of merit in which placed by the Recruitment Board as per the vacancies then available. 5. You are liable to serve in any where in India. 6. This should not be construed as a promise of Employment. " (iii) Petitioner also served on a deputation for a period of three years w.ef. December 1983 to May 1986. Respondents held interview to the post of Supdt. B/R Grade-II/SA Grade-II on 19th April, 1983 to 23rd April, 1983. Petitioner appeared and was again selected for the post. 3. Petitioner was dismayed that despite having been selected in the interviews referred to above for the post of Supdt E/M Grade-II and Supdt B/R Grade-II/SA Grade-II, he was not appointed. Respondents held interview to the post of Supdt. B/R Grade-II/SA Grade-II on 19th April, 1983 to 23rd April, 1983. Petitioner appeared and was again selected for the post. 3. Petitioner was dismayed that despite having been selected in the interviews referred to above for the post of Supdt E/M Grade-II and Supdt B/R Grade-II/SA Grade-II, he was not appointed. It is the petitioners case that despite assurances being given that appointment would follow on release of vacancies, the respondents vide their letter of 12th December, 1990 intimated the petitioner that his case for appointment had been referred to HQ CE WC Chanaimandir but had been turned down. The cause as given appears in the letter of the HQ, CE WC Chandimandir which is reproduced for facility of reference: 1. Reference your letter No. 15001/BR II/769/EIB(S) dt. 93 Sep. 90. 2. MES-366943 Shri N.C. Garg, Refg Mech of GE(S) AF Palam appeared for interview held on 19-23 Apr. 83 for the post of Supdt B/R Gde II as a departmental candidate having being sponsored by your official. 3. As per the then prevailing recruitment rules age relaxation in case of Govt. servant at the time of calling for interview should not exceed 35 years for general category candidates. His date of birth being 15 Aug., 45 he was over age at the time of interview. 4. The application of the individual along with connected documents received vide your above quoted letter is returned herewith unactioned." 4. It would be seen from the foregoing that the respondents took the plea that when the petitioner had been called for interview, as per the recruitment rules, age should not have been more than 35 years for general category candidates. The date of birth of the petitioner being 15th August, 1945, it was contended that he was overage at the time of first interview itself on 19th May, 1981. 5. As noted earlier, petitioner was constrained to file OA which was dismissed vide the impugned order when the Counsel for the petitioner was not present. Review application preferred was also dismissed holding that no error apparent on the face of the record was pointed out and merely because the petitioner contend that decision was erroneous and wrong, was no ground to review the order. 6. We have heard Mr. T.N. Bhat and Mr. A.K. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of writ petition. Review application preferred was also dismissed holding that no error apparent on the face of the record was pointed out and merely because the petitioner contend that decision was erroneous and wrong, was no ground to review the order. 6. We have heard Mr. T.N. Bhat and Mr. A.K. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of writ petition. It is urged firstly that the finding that petitioner was overage at the time of interview was vitiated by adoption of wrong criteria. The Recruitment Rules do not prescribe that age is• to be reckoned on the date of interview. The petitioner was a Departmental candidate whose age and record were known to the respondents. He had applied when he was well within the maximum age limit of 35 years. Respondents were required to consider the age on the last date of receipt of applications and not on the date of interview. No response was elicited either before the Triblmal or before us to a query as to what was the last date of receipt of the applications inasmuch as it is claimed by the respondents that the records had been destroyed and this information was not available. This being the position if there is an ambiguity or doubt as to the applicable cut-off date, then the same cannot be held by the Department against the petitioner. 7. We also find that in the instant case based on the Circular dated 26th November, 1984 issued by the Chief Engineer (Project) appearing at page 18 of the paper book, the upper age limit stood relaxed upto 40 to 45 years in the case of Scientific and Technical appointments. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that undoubtedly both the posts for which the petitioner had attained the additional qualifications were certainly technical if not scientific in nature. Petitioner would thus be eligible for age relaxation under the aforesaid circular. Counsel also places reliance on Sandeep Kumar Sharma v. State of Punjab and Others, 1997 (10) SCC 298 to urge that such provisions are to be liberally construed. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents Ms. Maninder Acharya sought to urge that the said circular had been issued for the benefit of employees of Defence Personnel and did not apply to other services such as MES or Civilian Staff Officials of the Ministry of Defence. The relevant extract from the circular is reproduced: 1. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents Ms. Maninder Acharya sought to urge that the said circular had been issued for the benefit of employees of Defence Personnel and did not apply to other services such as MES or Civilian Staff Officials of the Ministry of Defence. The relevant extract from the circular is reproduced: 1. The upper age limit and educational qualifications and other conditions for direct entrants in various Government services are laid down in the relevant Recruitment Rules. As a measure to suitably help qualified Government servants and to make best use of the persons acquiring additional qualifications during service, the upper age limit for Government servants for direct entry into different higher grades has been relaxed upto 35 years. It has been represented that this age limit of 35 years for Government servants is too low and should be raised, so that they are encouraged to acquire additional qualifications and the same are used in the interest of State. 2. The above mentioned suggestion has been carefully considered at this Headquarters. It is stated that the Government has already taken note of the need to encourage Government servants who acquire additional qualifications and with a view to making best use of their experience and knowledge, the upper age limit has already been raised to 35 years. This relaxation is a step in the direction of liberal and progressive thinking of the Government or recruitment policy. "Therefore it is not possible to raise this limit further as the same would interfere with induction of free talent conforming to the growing and changing needs of the administration. "It may also be pointed out that in the case of certain scientific and technical appointments, the upper age limit has further been relaxed upto 40 or 45 years. However, as a general rule, the upper age limit cannot be raised beyond 35 years." This may please be disseminated to all concerned. 9. On a purposeful and meaningful reading of the aforesaid circular, we find that there are several indications that it is applicable to position and posts which are covered by Recruitment Rules applicable to Government servants. Reference to Recruitment Rules concerning Government servants itself is an indicator that age relaxation is not to be restricted to personnel of the Army or Defence Forces. Reference to Recruitment Rules concerning Government servants itself is an indicator that age relaxation is not to be restricted to personnel of the Army or Defence Forces. Moreover the second para of the circular refers to encouragement required to be given to Government servants to acquire additional qualifications. This would remove doubt if any existed. As noted, petitioner has acquired additional qualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering. Hence the above circular would be applicable to petitioners case. 10. Counsel for the respondents also sought to urge that the said benefit of the circular would not be available to the petitioner since it was in 1974 that he acquired the additional qualification while the interviews had taken place in 1981 and 1983. This plea is also of no avail, as the intimation given by the respondents in December, 1981 regarding selection itself referring to consideration for appointment in order of merit as per the vacancies which would be available. Furthermore in 1990, when the respondents rejected the petitioners case on the ground that as per then prevailing Recruitment Rules, age should not exceed 35 years on the date of interview, in our view as noted by us earlier, petitioner was entitled to the benefit of his age being reckoned from the last date of receipt of applications. The last date of application not being available, the benefit of ambiguity or doubt is to be given in favour of petitioner. Respondents in the normal course prior to issuance of the letter dated 16th December, 1981, would have duly verified the petitioners age. Alternatively, as the respondents contend that appointments were to be made when vacancies were available, in case vacancy arose on a date subsequent to 1984 when candidature of petitioner might have been considered then relaxation in age was available to the petitioner in terms of circular of 1984. In view of the foregoing discussion, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and hold that petitioner was eligible to be appointed to the post. As petitioner has already superannuated• in the month of August, 2005, we direct that petitioner be granted increased pensionary or retiral benefits as may be applicable to him by granting him notional appointment before the date on which the person junior to him was appointed. Petitioner shall, however, be not entitled to any back wages as he did not work in the said post. Mr. Petitioner shall, however, be not entitled to any back wages as he did not work in the said post. Mr. Bhat also does not press for grant of back wages and has confined his prayer for grant of increased pensionary or retiral benefits on the basis of notional appointment. Writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. Writ Petition allowed.