Heard Sri R.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajnish Kumar on behalf of opposite party no.1 and the learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties no. 2 to 4. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the decision dated 06.11.2009 of the opposite party no.1, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner is also seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.1 to allow the petitioner forthwith to participate in the on going interview for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in Public Works Department. The petitioner, in addition, has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to comply the order dated 20.10.1997, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1680 (S/S) of 1996, Amrendra Kumar Singh and others vs. State of U.P. & others and provide the benefit of the same to the petitioner. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is challenging the impugned rejection memo dated 06.11.2009 on the ground that opposite party no.1 has wrongly calculated the age of the petitioner and not considered the eligibility of the petitioner for relaxation in upper age limit as mentioned/ provided in the advertisement, as the petitioner has completed one year trainee apprenticeship in Public Works Department, hence, the petitioner is entitled for relaxation for one year in upper age limit. 4. The U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad had issued an advertisement No.3/2008-2009 dated 29.11.2008 for direct recruitment on various posts including 422 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) in Public Works Department. As per the advertisement, the candidates who have passed diploma in Civil Engineering and are in the age group of 21 to 35 years, are eligible to apply for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). In the advertisement the cut of date for calculating the age was fixed as 01.07.2008. It is also mentioned in the advertisement that relaxation of upper age limit will be greater by one year for those candidates who have obtained trainee apprenticeship. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner has completed three years' Diploma in Civil Engineering from Government Polytechnic, Bahraich in the year 1992 and also completed graduation and post graduation in the year 1995 and 1999 respectively. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner has completed three years' Diploma in Civil Engineering from Government Polytechnic, Bahraich in the year 1992 and also completed graduation and post graduation in the year 1995 and 1999 respectively. The petitioner has also completed one year trainee apprenticeship from 09.06.1993 to 08.06.1994 under the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works Department, Bahraich. 6. The petitioner on account of having one year experience of trainee apprenticeship, is entitled for age relaxation of one year in upper age limit. The petitioner submitted all the requisite details along with the application but the opposite party no.1 without considering the period of trainee apprenticeship rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground being over age. 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.1972 and he has completed 35 years as on 01.07.2007 and after adding one year's period of trainee apprenticeship, he has completed 36 years as on 01.07.2008 and, therefore, the petitioner is fully eligible for being considered but the opposite party no.1 has illegally and arbitrarily rejected the candidature of the petitioner. 8. Apart from this, the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.1680 (S/S) of 1996, Amrendra Kumar Singh & others vs. State of U.P. & others. This Court while disposing of the said writ petition, directed the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment whenever recruitment to the concerned post is made in the light of the guidelines given in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another vs. U.P. Pariwahan Nigam Shishuksha Berojzar Sangh and another reported in 1995 (1) UPLBEC 320. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-12 of the said judgment laid down four guidelines, which read as under:- "12..... ........, we state that the following would be kept in mind while dealing with the claim of trainees to get employment after successful completion of their training:- (1)Other thing beings equal, a trained apprentice should be given preference over direct recruits. (2)For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of India v Hargopal, AIR 1987 SC 1227 , would permit this. (2)For this, a trainee would not be required to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange. The decision of this Court in Union of India v Hargopal, AIR 1987 SC 1227 , would permit this. (3)If age bar would come in the way of the trainee, the same would be relaxed in accordance with what is stated in this regard, if any, in the concerned service rule. If the service rule be silent on this aspect, relaxation to the extent of the period for which the apprentice had undergone training would be given. (4)The concerned training institute would maintain a list of the persons trained year wise. The persons trained earlier would be treated as senior to the persons trained later. In between the trained apprentices, preference shall be given to those who are senior. 9. Sri Rajnish Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 while opposing the writ petition submitted that the petitioner is over age and even after granting one year relaxation as per the advertisement, he does not fall under the category of eligible candidate and, therefore, his candidature was rejected. 10. It is further submitted by Sri Rajnish Kumar that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.1972 and after granting one year's age relaxation on account of experience of trainee apprenticeship he has completed his age of 36 years on 30.06.2008. 11. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for respective parties and gone through the record of the writ petition. 12. The basic controversy involved in the present petition is that whether the petitioner had completed the age of 36 years on 30.06.2008 or on 01.07.2008 keeping in view the fact that his date of birth is 01.07.1972. 13. As per the advertisement No.3/2008-2009 dated 29.11.2008, a candidate who has passed Diploma in Civil Engineering and is in the age group of 21 to 35 years was eligible to apply for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) and for calculating the age, the cut of date was fixed as 01.07.2008. The advertisement provides for relaxation of upper age limit by one year for those candidates who have got training as apprenticeship. The advertisement provides for relaxation of upper age limit by one year for those candidates who have got training as apprenticeship. As per the advertisement, a candidate must not be above 35 years of age on 01.07.2008 and the age limit was greater by one year for those candidates who have got training as apprenticeship, meaning thereby a candidate with apprenticeship training should not be above 36 years of age as on 01.07.2008. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhu Dayal Sesma vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in 1986 (4) SCC 59 pleased to observe that while counting the age of a person, whole of the day should be reckoned and it starts from 12 O'clock in the mid-night and he attains the specified age on the preceding, the anniversay of his birth day. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras- 9 to 14 read as under:- "9........... At first impression, it may seem that a person born on January 2, 1956 would attain 28 years of age only on January 2, 1984 and not on January 1, 1984. But this is not quite accurate. In calculating a person's 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 birthday. We have to apply well accepted rules for computation of time. One such rule is that fractions of a day will be omitted in computing a period of time is years or months in the sense that a fraction of a day will be treated as a full, day. A legal day commences at 12 O'clock midnight and continues until the same hour the following night. There is a popular misconception that a person does (sic not) attain a particular age unless and until he has completed a given number of years. In the absence of any express provision, it is well settled that any specified age in law is to be computed as having been attained on the day preceding the anniversary of the birthday. 10. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd edn. Vol. In the absence of any express provision, it is well settled that any specified age in law is to be computed as having been attained on the day preceding the anniversary of the birthday. 10. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd edn. Vol. 37, para 178 at p. 100, the law was stated thus: In computing a period of time, at any rate when counted in years or months, no regard is, as a general rule, paid to fractions of a day, in the sense that the period is regarded as complete although it is short to the extent of a fraction of a day.... Similarly, in calculating a person's age the day of his birth counts as a whole day; and he attains a specified age on the day next before the anniversary of his birthday. 11. We have come across two English decisions on the point. In Rex. v. Scoffin, the question was whether the accused had or had not completed 21 years of age. Section 10 (1) of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914 provides that a person might be sent to Borstal if it appears to the court that he is not more than 21 years of age. The accused was born on February 17, 1909. Lord Hewart, C.J. Held that the accused completed 21 years of age on February 17, 1930 which was the Commission day of Manchester Assizes. 12. In Re Shurey, Savory v. Shurey, the question that arose for decision was this: Does a person attain a specified age in law on the anniversary of his or her birthday, or on the day preceding that anniversary? After reviewing the earlier decisions, Sargant, J. said that law does not take cognizance of part of a day and the consequence is that person attains the age of twenty-one years or of twenty-five years, or any specified age, on the day preceding the anniversary of his twenty-first or twenty-fifth birthday or other birthday, as the case may be. 13. From Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., vol. 45, para 1143 at p. 550 it appears that Section 9 of the Family Law Reforms Act, 1969 has abrogated the old common law rule stated in Re Shurey Savory v. Shurey. 14. It is in recognition of the difference between how a person's age is legally construed and how it is understood in common parlance. 45, para 1143 at p. 550 it appears that Section 9 of the Family Law Reforms Act, 1969 has abrogated the old common law rule stated in Re Shurey Savory v. Shurey. 14. It is in recognition of the difference between how a person's age is legally construed and how it is understood in common parlance. The legislature has expressly provided in Section 4 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 that how the age of majority is to be computed. It reads: "4. Age of majority how computed.- In computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day, and he shall be deemed to have attained majority, if he falls within the first paragraph of Section 3, at the beginning of the twenty-first anniversary of that day, and if he falls within the second paragraph of Section 3, at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day." The section embodies that in computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day and he must be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day." 15. On applying the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner whose date of birth is 01.07.1972 has completed the age of 36 years on30.06.2008, a day preceding to the petitioner's birth day anniversay i.e. 01.07.2008 and, as such, in view of the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement, the petitioner is over age by one day. 16. So far as question with respect to the benefits of judgment and order of this Court dated 20.10.1997 passed in Writ Petition No.1680 (S/S) of 1996, Amrendra Kumar Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others is concerned, in the said judgment, it has been observed that the opposite parties shall consider the case of the petitioner for appointment whenever recruitment to the concerned post is made in the light of the guidelines given in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another (supra). 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-12 of the said judgment laid down the guidelines. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-12 of the said judgment laid down the guidelines. The third guideline provides for relaxation of age to the apprentice to the extent of the period for which he had undergone training would be given. In the present case, the petitioner has undergone an apprenticeship training for the period of one year and as per advertisement the age relaxation for a period of one year has been provided to the apprenticeship trainees. Therefore, it can very well be said that the opposite parties while publishing the advertisement has taken care of all the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgments of this Court. 18. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, the writ petition lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.