Muzaffar Hussain Attar. Different clauses of Article 37 of J&K Civil Service Regulations, 1956, (for short Regulations) have been worded and phrased differently by the rule making authority, which phraseology, not only appear to be creating anomalous situation, but also seem to be at logger heads with each other. When such type of provisions of law come up for consideration of the court, its first effort has to place purposeful construction on them. The court by applying judicial methodlogy has to harmonize and place such construction on them which would make them meaningful and effective. The Article 37 as it exists in the “Regulations” would require to be chisled in a manner which would make it purposeful and result oriented. Article 37 would require to be read down so as to being it within the frame work of Article 14 of Constitution. 2. In our constitutional scheme not only jurisdiction but functions of three organs of the State viz executive, legislature and judiciary are delineated. Every organ of the State has to maintain diehard discipline in its functioning to ensure that it does not transgress its limits and usurp the powers and functions of one or other organ of the State. These organs of the State are like the creature of nature viz stars/planets, and have to strictly tread the path which has been delineated for them. Any deviation from natural course would result in collision of these organs of the nature and the consequences would be catastrophic. Likewise in democratic state like ours in which functioning of different organs of the State is regulated by the Constitution, any effort to breach the frontiers of other organs of the State would definitely have catastrophic effect on the body politic. 3. The duty of the courts of law is to ensure that the other organs of the State function in accordance with the mandate contained in the Constitution and other laws. Further duty of the courts is to interpret the laws made by legislature as also the subordinate legislations. Under the guise of the interpreting laws, the courts cannot, however, assume unto themselves the functions of the legislature and start writing Statutes/laws, which certainly, is the function of the legislature. The function of Constitutional Courts is to interpret laws and in the first place construe them in a manner which would save them from rigour of provision of constitution. 4. The function of Constitutional Courts is to interpret laws and in the first place construe them in a manner which would save them from rigour of provision of constitution. 4. In the aforementioned backdrop a brief narration of facts of this case becomes imperative. 5. On 13th August 2009 respondent No.4 issued advertisement notice whereunder applications were invited from eligible candidates for seeking consideration for being selected/appointed as ReT which had become vacant because of resignation of person who was earlier appointed on the said post. One of the terms and conditions of the advertisement notice was that the last date for filing the applications would be cutoff date for determining age/eligibility/qualification. This advertisement notice was withdrawn by notification dated 14th Dec. 2009. The respondent No.4, thereafter issued another notification dated 30th Dec. 2009 which was published in daily newspaper on 31st of Dec. 2009, whereunder the applications were invited from eligible candidates of the concerned revenue village having 10+2 and above qualification with Math and Science back ground, for engagement as ReT, besides in other schools in M.S Shumnag. 6. One post was notified for being filled up in the said School. One of the condition contained in the re-advertisement notice was “the last date will be cutoff date for determining age/qualification/merit”. The appellant as also respondent no.4 responded to the said notice and sought consideration for being selected/engaged as ReT in M.S. Shumnag. Provisional merit panel was prepared on 27th Jan. 2010, in which the appellant on the basis of his merit figured at Sr. No. 1 and respondent No.4 at Sr. No. 2. Selection list was issued on 4th Feb. 2010 by respondent No.3 whereunder the appellant was provisionally recommended for being engaged as ReT in M.S. Shumnag zone chadura. It was provided that any person having objection regarding the eligibility of the appellant shall file same with documentary proof within week” s time from the date of publication of notice. The respondent No.4 filed objections in which he stated that on the first day of Jan. 2009 appellant was below 18 years of age and in terms of Article 37 of the “Regulations” was ineligible for being engaged as ReT. The objection raised by respondent No.4 found favour with the official respondents and respondent No.4 was selected and ultimately engaged as ReT on 28th Oct. 2010. 2009 appellant was below 18 years of age and in terms of Article 37 of the “Regulations” was ineligible for being engaged as ReT. The objection raised by respondent No.4 found favour with the official respondents and respondent No.4 was selected and ultimately engaged as ReT on 28th Oct. 2010. It is this order, which was called in question in the writ petition by the appellant. 7. The respondents in their reply affidavit/objections filed before the writ court have taken a definite stand that the advertisement notice dated 30th Dec. 2009, was published on 31st of Dec. 2009 and appellant admittedly on 1st of Jan. 2009, had not attained the age of 18 years, thus, was not eligible and his selection for being engaged as ReT has rightly been cancelled/withdrawn and respondent No. 4 on the basis of his merit has been selected and engaged as ReT, thus, no fault can be found with the appointment of private respondent. 8. The ld single judge vide his judgment dated 25th May 2012, dismissed the writ petition. The appellant being aggrieved of the order/judgment has challenged the same in this LPA. 9. Mr. B.A. Bashir, ld Sr. counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that it was provided in the re-advertisement notice dated 30th Dec. 2009, and published on 31st of Dec. 2009, that “ the last date will be the cutoff date for determining age/qualification/merit”, and since the last date for submitting the application was 10th Jan. 2010, and not only on that date but even on the date of issuance of advertisement notice, appellant was within prescribed age limit, in as-much-as, he had attained the minimum prescribed age of 18 years on 31st of March, 2009, which fact is admitted by respondent No.3 in his communication dated 17th May 2010, addressed to respondent No.2 (annexure-L of writ petition). Ld counsel submitted that the advertisement notice constitutes representation to the eligible candidates and in view of terms and conditions contained therein the appellant as already stated was within prescribed age limit at the time advertisement notice was issued and in view of his superior merit he was rightly recommended for being engaged as ReT, but has been illegally deprived of the same. Ld counsel further submitted that Article 37 (1) and Note-7 appended to said Article do not provide that the minimum prescribed age has to be reckoned as 1st of Jan. Ld counsel further submitted that Article 37 (1) and Note-7 appended to said Article do not provide that the minimum prescribed age has to be reckoned as 1st of Jan. of the year in which the advertisement notice was issued. Ld counsel while referring to the Article 37 (1) submitted that it mandates that the minimum and maximum age limit in respect of Direct Recruit to government service in the sub-ordinate and gazetted service has to be reckoned from first day of January of the year in which the “competitive examination is held or nomination is made in respect of the vacancy”. Ld counsel submitted that the language of the said “Regulation” would show that the age of 18 years has reference to the first day of January of the year in which the “competitive examination is held or nomination is made in respect of the vacancy” and not to the issuance of advertisement notice. Ld counsel further submitted that since the nomination in respect of the vacancy in the present case has been made in the year 2010, and admittedly on 1st day of January 2010, the appellant was above 18 years of age, he could not have been, thus, stripped off of his right of being engaged as ReT. Ld counsel further submitted that Note-7 of Article 37 cannot control Article 37(1) and that it being marginal note cannot be referred to for purpose of construing the statute. Ld counsel further submitted that purpose of introducing Note 7 in Article 37 is to protect initial appointment to Government Service and will not be applicable to the facts of this case. Ld counsel in support of his contention referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Board of Muslim Wakfs, Rajasthan, Appellant v. Radha Kishan and ors, Respondents reported in (1979) 2 Supreme Court Cases 468; case titled Maharashtra Tubes Ltd, appellant v. State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd and Anr, Respondents, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 144 and in case titled Datar Switchgears Ltd, Appellant v. Tata Finance Ltd and anr, Respondents, reported in (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 151. Ld counsel, accordingly, prayed that LPA be allowed and the engagement order of respondent No.4 be quashed, with further direction to official respondents to engage the appellant as ReT in place of respondent No.4. 10. Mr. Ld counsel, accordingly, prayed that LPA be allowed and the engagement order of respondent No.4 be quashed, with further direction to official respondents to engage the appellant as ReT in place of respondent No.4. 10. Mr. S.A. Naik ld counsel for official respondents submitted that in view of the mandate contained in Note-7 of Article 37(1) the appellant was below prescribed minimum age limit on first Jan. 2009 and was ineligible, thus, could not be engaged as ReT. Mr. A. Haqani ld counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that the, appellant, on 1st day of January 2009, admittedly was not within the minimum prescribed age limit of 18 years accordingly being not eligible could not have any grievance in law against the engagement of respondent No.4 who admittedly was within the prescribed age limit on first day of January 2009 and on the basis of his merit was engaged and is continuously discharging his duties. Ld counsel submitted that Article 37(1) and Note-7 are to be construed in a manner which would ensure that the regulations/note is not manipulated to obtain the desired results by authorities. Ld counsel in support of his contention referred to the Division Bench judgment of this court in case titled Ms. Shaheena Masarat v. State and ors, reported in 2010 (1) SLJ 477. Ld counsel made specific reference to paragraphs 34 and 35 of the said judgment. 11. In order to appreciate the contentions raised at bar, it is apposite to take note of Rule-9 and Rule-17 of THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROAL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1956(for short Rules of 1956) and Article 37(1) (3) and Note-7 of the “Regulations.” “9. First appointments to a service or class may be made:- (a) by promotion from the same or by transfer from an other service or class, or (b) by direct recruitment, or ( c) partly by (a) and partly by (b). “ 17. Qualification:- No person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment, unless:- (a) he is hereditary State Subject to be known hereafter as a permanent resident; (b) The age of the candidate for appointment to Government service shall be subject to the following maximum and minimum limits as on first day of January of the year in which the competitive examination is held or application are invited for a vacancy for which direct recruitment is made. Category Minimum age Maximum age 1. General Candidates 18 years 35 years 2. Members of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes 18 years 38 years 3. Physically handicapped 18 years 37 years 4. Candidates already in Govt. Services. 38 years Provided that the age limit as shown above against each category may be relaxed by the competent Authority in respect of any individual case on the merits of each case. Provided further that Government may in respect of any particular service prescribe a different age limit”. (c) he satisfies the appointing authority that he is of sound health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity un-fitting him for such service; and (d) he satisfies the appointing authority that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service. [37. (1) Except in the case of direct recruits to (i) Kashmir Administrative Service (ii) Kashmir Police Service (iii) Kashmir Forest Service (iv) Kashmir. Accounts Service, in which case the minimum and maximum age limits for recruitment, will be governed by the recruitment rules of the respective services, the age of direct recruits to Government Service in the rest of subordinate and Gazette Services shall on the first date of January of the year in which competitive examination is held or the nomination is made in respect of the vacancy to which the direct recruitment is made, shall not be less than 18 years sand shall not exceed 30 years. Provided that the maximum age for such recruitment to the posts shown below does not exceed the limit indicated against each, Gezetted Service. Gezetted Service: 1. Kashmir Medical Service ....... 32 years Non-Gezetted: 1. Police Sub-Inspectors } 2. Constables and Head Constables ..28 years 3. Subordinate posts in Fire Services } 4. Shepherds of the Sheep Breeding and ... 35 years Provided that the upper age limits for entry into Government service in respect of handicapped persons shall be relaxed by 5 years. Gezetted Service: 1. Kashmir Medical Service ....... 32 years Non-Gezetted: 1. Police Sub-Inspectors } 2. Constables and Head Constables ..28 years 3. Subordinate posts in Fire Services } 4. Shepherds of the Sheep Breeding and ... 35 years Provided that the upper age limits for entry into Government service in respect of handicapped persons shall be relaxed by 5 years. The age limit may be relaxed by the competent authority] 37.(3) Notwithstanding anything otherwise contained in Articles 37 (i) and 37 (2) the following maximum age limits shall apply (and shall always be deemed to have applied from 16-12-1988) in respect of direct recruits to Government service in all the subordinate and Gezetted services on the first day of the January of the year in which the competitive examination is held or nomination is made in respect of the vacancy to which direct recruitment is made:-- Category Maximum age (i) General candidates 35 years (ii) Physically handicapped 37 years (iii) Members of Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes 38 years (iv) Candidates already in Government Service 38 years Note 7-- In the case of initial appointment to Government Service made on the recommendations of the Recruitment Boards, Public Service Commission, or any Selection Committee, the limitations of minimum and maximum age as contained in Article 37, shall be observed with reference to first day of January in which the advertisement notice for the post(s) is issued. This shall also apply to pending cases if-any.” One of the prescribed mode of first appointment to a service or class of service is by direct recruitment in terms of Rule-9 of Rules of 1956. 12. Rule-17 of the Rules of 1956, deals with the qualification and provides that no person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment, if, as provided in clause (b) of the said Rule, he is below the minimum or above the maximum age limit as may be prescribed by the Government for direct recruitment to the service or class or post under rules applicable, either general, or with reference to any particular service, class or post. It is further provided that age limit may be relaxed by the competent authority in any individual case. 13. It is further provided that age limit may be relaxed by the competent authority in any individual case. 13. The conjoint reading of Rule-9 (b) and Rule-17 (b) provide that when a person is appointed as a direct recruit, he has not to be below the minimum and above maximum age limit as prescribed by the Government. These rules, however, do not provide as to which shall be the stage of recruitment process at which the minimum and maximum age limit prescribed by the Government has to be applied. It may not be out of place to mention here that temporary provisions have been made in terms of Rule-17 of the Rules of 1956, whereunder, the upper age limit for appointment to government service in clause (b) was relaxed by 1/2 years from time to time. 14. Article 37(1) of the “Regulations” deals with two types of direct recruitments, viz., Kashmir Administrative Service/Kashmir Police Service/Kashmir Forest Service and Kashmir Accounts Service, in which case it has been provided that the minimum and maximum age limits for recruitment will be governed by recruitment rules of the respective services, and the another part of the said Article provide that the age of direct recruitment in the government service in the rest of the subordinate and gazetted services shall on the first day of Jan of the year “in which the competitive examination is held or nomination is made in respect of the vacancy to which the direct recruitment is made”, be not less than 18 years and shall not exceed 30 years. In terms of Article 37(3), the upper age limit has been prescribed as 35 years for general category candidates, 37 years physically handicapped and 38 years for Schedule caste, Schedule tribe and in service government candidates. The minimum age of 18 years as prescribed in Article 37(1) has reference to the year of competitive examination or the nomination made in respect of the vacancy. 15. In common parlance it would mean that in the year the competitive examination is held or nomination is made in respect of vacancy in direct recruitment process, the candidate shall not be less than 18 years of age and shall not exceed the age as prescribed under “Regulations” 37 (3). 15. In common parlance it would mean that in the year the competitive examination is held or nomination is made in respect of vacancy in direct recruitment process, the candidate shall not be less than 18 years of age and shall not exceed the age as prescribed under “Regulations” 37 (3). The phraseology of the Article 37(1) of the “Regulations”, if read in isolation of other clauses and is given effect, would trigger off an anomalous situation and will give rise to complete chaos in recruitment process . 16. Assume a situation that advertisement notice is issued in year 2012 and a candidate “A” is unable to respond to the said notice being below the minimum prescribed age limit of 18 years on the last date fixed in the advertisement notice. For any reason the competitive examination is not held in the same year but is held in 2013, or nomination is made in respect of the vacancy in the year 2013 and before completing of aforementioned eventualities, the candidate who was not eligible being below the prescribed age limit on the last cutoff date for filing application forms, comes up of age and becomes eligible for seeking consideration for being selected/appointed on the post advertised in the year 2012 in view of the expressions used in Article 37(1) would it stand to reason to say that a candidate who was ineligible when the recruitment process was initiated by issuance of advertisement notice can be considered for being selected/appointed on the post in the year when competitive examination is held or nomination is made, moreso, when he has not been part of the recruitment process. If such an argument is accepted then analmous situation would be created. Not only that the selection process cannot be brought to its logical conclusion as there would be apparent conflict of interest between those candidates who were eligible on the last date fixed in the advertisement notice and those, who were ineligible on the said date and were not part of selection process, but still would claim to be considered for being selected/appointed in view of the language used in Article 37 (1) of the “Regulations”, and will also vitiate the entire selection process for violating Article 14 of Constitution. The interpretation sought to be placed by Mr. B.A. Bashir ld sr. The interpretation sought to be placed by Mr. B.A. Bashir ld sr. counsel appearing for the appellant on Article 37(1) in these circumstances cannot be accepted. The expression “age of direct recruitment to Government service….. on the first day of January of the year in which the competitive examination is held or the nomination is made in respect of the vacancy.... shall not be less than 18 years and shall not exceed 30 years” has to be considered in conjunction with other clauses and Notes of Art. 37. 17. The clause (1) of the Article 37 has been re-numbered vide F.D. Notification SRO-23rd dated 14th January, 1991,. The clause (III) of Article 37 has been re-numbered/inserted vide the same F.D Notification SRO 23rd dated 14th Jan. 1991. The Note-7 has been inserted in Article 37 of the “Regulations” by F.D. Notification SRO-19 dated 25.1.1982. The Note- 7 is a statutory note inserted in Article 37 and is not a marginal note. It may not be out of place to mention here, that when this position was indicated to ld counsel for the appellant, he also fairly conceded that the Note-7 is not marginal note, though at the time of commencement of the submissions ld counsel had argued that note-7 is a marginal note and same cannot be referred to for the purpose of construing the Article 37 (1) of “Regulations” and for this reliance was placed by him on decision of Hon’ble S.C in cases of Board of Muslim Wakfs” and Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. 18. The Note-7 which is the statutory note and inserted way back in the year 1982, in fact is clarificatory in nature and the intention of the rule making authority as manifested in Article 37 is made clear by it. The plain language of note-7 would show that at the time of initial appointment to government service made on the recommendations of the recruitment board/PSC or any selection committee, the limitations of minimum and maximum age as contained in Article 37 have to be mandatorily observed with reference to first day of January in which year the advertisement notice for the post(s) was issued. The plain construction of the Note-7 would, thus, get manifested in one fact that at the time of initial appointment of a person to government service, the minimum age limit prescribed by the Article 37 would have reference to first day of January in which the advertisement notice for the post(s) was issued. Article 37 has prescribed the minimum age limit of 18 years for seeking consideration for being appointed as a direct recruit to government service. Since the recruitment process is initiated by issuance of advertisement notice, thus, on the first day of January in which year the advertisement notice is issued for filling up of post(s), the candidate must have minimum age of 18 years. The Note-7 of Article 37 of the “Regulations” has the potential of accomplishing two purposes viz one that a candidate at the time of issuance of advertisement notice may be within the prescribed upper age limit and for any reason the recruitment process may get delayed and by the time he is recommended for initial appointment he may have crossed the maximum age limit prescribed, it would cause great injustice to such person and in order to remedy the mischief and wrong, maximum age limit at the time of his initial appointment, has to date back to first day of January of the year in which the advertisement notice is issued. Secondly, on the same analogy a candidate has to be possessed of minimum age limit prescribed on the first day of January of the year in which the advertisement notice for the post(s) was issued. The aforementioned construction and interpretation placed on note-7 of Article 37 would end the confusion and the uncertainty that may otherwise arise. The selection authority is duty bound to avoid creating of a situation which would give rise to uncertainty in the selection process, and providing scope for creating uncertainty in the selection process is neither in the interest of competing candidates and nor that of the selection authority/government. There are two ways of providing certainty and avoiding confusion in the selection process; one is that, date for settling the eligibility qualification would be determined by the statutory rules, and other, would be to determine it by providing such clauses in the advertisement notice. There are two ways of providing certainty and avoiding confusion in the selection process; one is that, date for settling the eligibility qualification would be determined by the statutory rules, and other, would be to determine it by providing such clauses in the advertisement notice. The Article 37(1) (3) and note-7 when read in conjunction prescribe minimum and maximum age limit and this prescription has reference to first day of January of the year in which the advertisement notice for the post(s) is issued. The selection authority is duty bound to prescribe cutoff date in the advertisement notice for determining age and other education/technical qualification so as to ensure that the selection process is initiated and concluded in smooth manner and without creating confusion in the minds of the candidate(s) about the same. One of the admitted modes of construing the statute or provisions of statute is to read it in conjunction with the other clauses of the same provision or with preceding and succeeding clause of the same statute/statutory rules. 19. In its setting the Article 37 (1) cannot be read in isolation to other clauses and the statutory notes of the said Article. Different clauses and Notes of Article 37 have to be harmonized and blended with each other and it is only by construing the Article 37 in its entirety, the appropriate results can be derived. Reading Article 37(1) in isolation would otherwise be not in accordance with the Scheme of Article 37 and has to be read with other clauses/statutory notes thereof. Reading Article 37 (1) in isolation and not in unison with other clauses and statutory notes of Article 37 would attract the observation made by Hon’ble S.C in case titled Rekha Chaturvedi (SMT). Petitioner v. University of Rajasthan and Anr. ... Respondents, reported in 1993 (Suppl) (3) SCC 168 and paragraph-10 thereof is taken note of :- “The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not it they are yet to acquire the qualifications. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not it they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainly of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz, even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the selection/committee in the present case, as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup, took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection Committee in the present case, as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup, took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent illegality and on this ground itself the selections in question are liable to be quashed. Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P.Public Service Commission, Hyderabad v.B.Sarat Chandra and District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society Vizianagaram v. M.Tripura Sundari Devi.” The Division Bench of this court in case titled Ms. Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P.Public Service Commission, Hyderabad v.B.Sarat Chandra and District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society Vizianagaram v. M.Tripura Sundari Devi.” The Division Bench of this court in case titled Ms. Shaheena Masarat v. State and ors, reported in 2010 (I) S.L.J, ruled that Article 37 of J&K Civil Service Regulations is applicable to the posts under Re-T. In order to give proper meaning, interpretation and construction to Art. 37(1) of the “Regulations” and in order to make it in tune with service jurisprudence and the purpose of making the direct recruitment which has to be made in accordance with the mandate contained in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, for our above stated reasons, it is held that the expression “the age of direct recruitment to government service in respect of subordinate and gazetted services shall on the first day of January of the year in which the competitive examination is held or the nomination is made in respect of the vacancy to which the direct recruitment is made, shall not be less than 18 years and shall not exceed 30/35/37 and 38 years,” to mean that this minimum age limit has reference to first day of January in which year by issuance of advertisement notice the recruitment process is started. 20. The stipulations contained in the advertisement notice dated 30th Dec. 2009 provide besides other things about the age to be determinable with reference to the last cutoff date, which in view of the mandate contained in Article 37(1) (3) and note-7 cannot be fixed by an officer of the government as he has no authority to fix the same and it is to be fixed in accordance with the mandate contained in Article 37(1) (3) and note- 7. 21. In any event Article 37 of “Regulations” has to prevail and the cutoff date fixed for determining the age by respondent No.4 in the factual and legal background of this case will be inconsequential, same being not in accord with statutory rule. 22. 21. In any event Article 37 of “Regulations” has to prevail and the cutoff date fixed for determining the age by respondent No.4 in the factual and legal background of this case will be inconsequential, same being not in accord with statutory rule. 22. In view of our above stated discussions, the appellant admittedly was not within the minimum prescribed age limit on first day January 2009 in which year the advertisement notice was issued and consequently was not clothed with any right to seek consideration for being selected/engaged as ReT. The appellant being not an aggrieved person in law could not challenge the selection/engagement of respondent No.4 in the writ petition. 23. However, one thing which stares us is the date on which the advertisement notice was published viz 31st of Dec. 2009. Had the advertisement notice been issued on first of Jan. 2010, the appellant would be eligible and on the basis of his merit would have been engaged as ReT. The issuance and publication of advertisement notice has worked harshly to the rights and interests of the appellant. The selection authorities are advised to avoid issuance and publication of advertisement notice in the manner in which it has been done in this case, as by gap of twelve hours the fate of meritorious candidate(s) got sealed. It, otherwise, does not appear to be reasonable and just to publish an advertisement notice on 31st of December of the year when the minimum age of the competing candidate(s) has to be determined with reference to the first day of January of the said year. For our reasons recorded in this order, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference and LPA is accordingly dismissed.