Judgment Sonia Gokani, J. 1. By way of present petition preferred by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent No. 2 in eliminating the petitioner from the interview being held for the post of Police Sub-Inspector to be appointed in pursuance of the advertisement published on November 21, 2014. Considering the exigency in the matter, the matter is being taken up for final hearing at the admission stage with consent of both the sides. 2. RULE. The formal service of notice of Rule is waived by Shri Rashesh Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on behalf of respondents. The Rule is fixed forthwith on consent of both the sides. 3. The facts in a capsulised form are as under: 3.1 The petitioner joined the Indian Army at the age of 18 years and he served for the period from January 29, 2002 to June 30, 2008. He got himself enrolled as a recruit in EME Corps on January 29, 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted to 842 Field Workshop Company on the post of CFN-Technician which was located in Samba Sector in Jammu and Kashmir and he also worked in Ahmedabad Cantonment. Thereafter, he made a request for voluntary retirement and obtained voluntary retirement with effect from June 30, 2008. 3.2 The petitioner, thus, completed his tenure in Indian Army for about six years and five months. He has done his graduation in Science stream with First Division. He applied for the post of Police Sub-Inspector in pursuance of the advertisement published by the Police Recruitment Board on November 21, 2014. His application was accepted in the category of Ex-serviceman, who otherwise is to be given the benefit of age relaxation. 3.3 The petitioner appeared for the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) held on February 23, 2015, with Examination No. 10043598 in the category of Ex-serviceman and he cleared all such tests. 3.4 The written examination for the very post was held on May 02, 2014 to May 04, 2015, wherein his Roll Number was 10036435. He secured 272.67 marks and 273.67 marks in the examinations for the posts of Police Sub-Inspector and Assistant Sub-Inspector respectively. 3.4 The written examination for the very post was held on May 02, 2014 to May 04, 2015, wherein his Roll Number was 10036435. He secured 272.67 marks and 273.67 marks in the examinations for the posts of Police Sub-Inspector and Assistant Sub-Inspector respectively. His name appeared in the list of candidates called for personal interview, both for the posts of Police Sub-Inspector and Assistant Sub-Inspector, which was to be conducted on July 28, 2015 by the respondent-authorities at Gujarat Police Academy at Karai, Gandhinagar. However, on July 28, 2015, the petitioner was not permitted to appear for the interview on the ground that the benefit of age relaxation in the category of ex-serviceman would not be available in his case. The Welfare Officer objected to the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he ought to have completed 15 years of service as ex-serviceman. 3.5 The petitioner being aggrieved by such decision approached the Chairman of the Recruitment Board. The Board showed its inability to permit him for the interview in the wake of objection of the respondent No. 3-District Sainik Welfare Officer. This petition is essentially challenging the decision of the respondent-authorities of not treating the petitioner in the category of ex-serviceman and thereby, not granting the relaxation in his age. The required minimum age for the purpose of the said post is 21 years and the maximum age required is 30 years. 3.6 As per the said advertisement, the ex-serviceman would be given the benefit of age relaxation as per Gujarat Civil Services (Reservation of Vacancies for Ex-servicemen in Class III and IV posts and Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1975'). The advertisement also indicates that those ex-serviceman who have served the forces for not less than six months continuously and the period of service they have rendered at the time of retirement in regular course if is deducted from his age, it should not be more than three years of the upper age limit prescribed for the concerned post. E.g. If the upper age limit prescribed is 30 years and the total period of service with armed forces is 12 years, then the candidate who is aged 45 years would be entitled to such post. E.g. If the upper age limit prescribed is 30 years and the total period of service with armed forces is 12 years, then the candidate who is aged 45 years would be entitled to such post. In the present case, considering the age of the petitioner as on December 13, 2014 as required under the advertisement, he would be aged 30 years 10 months and 03 days on such stipulated date. The upper age prescribed for the said post of Police Sub-Inspector is 30 years, which he has already crossed by 10 months and 03 days for being eligible and, therefore, unless the age relaxation is permissible under the law, he cannot be termed as a qualified candidate. 3.7 In this background, he has prayed for the following reliefs: "5(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in any nature or direction, by directing the respondent No. 2 to declare the petitioner as eligible candidate in view of the age relaxation to be given to the candidate under the Ex-servicemen category as per the Important Notification No. (XIV) of the advertisement published by the respondent No. 2 on 21.11.2014 as well as the recruitment rules governing the criteria of age relaxation to be given to the Ex-servicemen. (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the selection process being carried out by the respondent No. 2 insofar as the petitioner has not been granted the benefit of age relaxation in the category of Ex-servicemen as per the advertisement dated 21.11.2014 published by the respondent No. 2 as per the Important Notifications No. (XIV) of the advertisement published by the respondent No. 2 on 21.11.2014 and as per the recruitment rules governing the criteria of age relaxation to be given to the Ex-servicemen. (D) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue direction upon the respondent authorities to hold the interview of the petitioner as he has been eliminated from the selection process arbitrarily without any justifiable reason and against the recruitment rules. (E) Such other and further relief/s which the Honourable Court may deem fit, just and proper be granted in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice." 4. (E) Such other and further relief/s which the Honourable Court may deem fit, just and proper be granted in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice." 4. On issuance of notice, the respondents have appeared and filed their affidavit-in-reply, which has been affirmed by the Inspector General of Police, stating inter alia that the petitioner is not eligible in the category of ex-serviceman, which was brought to the notice of the interviewing authority by the Sainik Welfare Officer that as per the definition of "ex-serviceman". As far as the reservation of vacancies in Gujarat Civil Services, especially posts of Class III and Class IV for ex-serviceman are concerned, the same are governed by the Rules, 1975. Such Rules, according to the said affidavit-in-reply, have been amended from time and again and the first amendment was made on June 03, 1987 and thereafter, on August 22, 1994. A person who has served in any rank in the Armed Forces for a continuous period of not less than six months, would be entitled to such reservation. It is the say of the deponent of the affidavit-in-reply that by way of notification dated August 22, 1994, it was resolved that a person who has served in any rank in Army and who has retired from service after earning his pension, will be considered eligible for reservation and such period of six months is now increased to 15 years and a change has already been notified and uploaded in the website of the Department. It is further submitted that as per the notification dated October 04, 2012, a person who has worked for 15 years and who has retired or relieved or discharged from service at his own request or being relieved after earning his/her pension, can be considered as ex-serviceman. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has worked in Indian Army for a period of six years and five months and, therefore, he is unable to meet with the requirement of the rules and, therefore, cannot be considered as ex-serviceman. 5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has challenged the interpretation made by the authority mainly on the ground that both the tests i.e. physical test and written test, have been considered under the category of ex-serviceman. 5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has challenged the interpretation made by the authority mainly on the ground that both the tests i.e. physical test and written test, have been considered under the category of ex-serviceman. It is his say that such scrutiny adopted by the Recruitment Board ought to have been done not in the midst of the selection, but prior to conducting the tests. It is further the say of the petitioner that Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 1975, stipulates that the candidate having served in the Army for a continuous period of six months after attestation would be entitled to age relaxation. It is also his say that the notification published by the Union in respect of reemployment in Central Services has no applicability so far as the State services are concerned. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Matar Chandra v. State of West Bengal, reported in 2012(3) WBLR 313 (Calcutta), whereby it is provided that the Court will not undertake the exercise of interpreting statute in view of the clear condition provided in the information brochure, based upon which the selection had taken place. 6. A fortiori, Shri Hemant Makwana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has urged that the wrong interpretation of the definition of "ex-serviceman" in the Rules, 1975, has resulted into denying the opportunity to the petitioner to appear for the interview. He has urged that the notifications of the Union Government are wrongly made applicable in the case of State services. 7. A contrario sensu, Shri Rashesh Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, defending the stand of the Government, has contended that the periodical amendments in the Recruitment Rules meant for ex-serviceman shall need to be regarded and the definition of the ex-serviceman as per the latest notification would include only those persons who have completed continuous 15 years of service. He has not disputed that the petitioner had performed quite well in the physical test and had obtained 272.67 marks and 273.67 marks in the written tests of Police Sub-Inspector and Assistant Sub-Inspector respectively. He also does not question the unblemish and continuous service of six years and five months with the Indian Army. The factum of his having taken voluntary retirement is also not being disputed. 8. He also does not question the unblemish and continuous service of six years and five months with the Indian Army. The factum of his having taken voluntary retirement is also not being disputed. 8. Having thus heard both the sides and having perused the material on record, the only question that requires consideration is the interpretation of the definition of 'ex-serviceman'. The Rules which are applicable are issued by the General Administration Department by way of Notification dated August 22, 1994, which are called the Gujarat Civil Services (Reservation of Vacancies for Ex-servicemen in Class III and IV posts and Service) Rules, 1975. The Governor of Gujarat has framed these Rules in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. They have deemed to come into force on July 01, 1987. It defines 'ex-serviceman' under Rule 2(c) as under: "2(c): 'An ex-servicemen' means a person, who has served in any rank (whether as a combatant or non-combatant) in the Regular Army, Navy and Air Force of the Indian Union but does not include a person who has served in the Defence Security Corps, the General Reserve Engineering Force, the Lok Sahayak Sena and Para Military Forces and (i) who has retired from such service after earning his pension; or (ii) who has been released from such service on medical grounds attributable to Military Service or circumstances beyond his control and awarded medical or otherwise disability pension; or (iii) who has been released from such service after completing the specific period of engagement, otherwise than at his own request or by way of dismissal or discharge on account of misconduct or inefficiency, and has been given a gratuity and includes personnel of the Territorial Army of the following categories, namely: a. Pension holders for continuous embodied service. b. Person with disability attributable to military service, and c. Gallantry award winners. d. at his own request after completing five year's service in the Armed Forces of the union; or (b) after serving for a continuous period of six months after attestation otherwise than at his own request or by way of dismissal or discharge on account of misconduct or inefficiency or has been transferred to the reserve, pending such release: shall be deemed to be ex-servicemen for the purpose of this clause." 9. Rule 2(c)(b) of the Rules, 1975, provides that 'ex-serviceman' is a person who has retired from service earning his pension or who has been released on medical grounds or awarded medical or medical/disability pension; or who has been released from such service after completing the specific period of engagement, for earning pension in the case of personnel below officer rank minimum period of 15 years. This period can be traced to the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pension Awards, 2008, which govern the pension of Armed Forces Personnel. The minimum qualifying service to earn pension for Commissioned Officer is 20 years, whereas for personnel below the rank of officer, minimum period is 15 years. 10. Admittedly, no change has been made in these Rules after August 22, 1994. The notification dated March 04, 1975, had made a special provision for age limit for ex-servicemen, which says that for appointment to reserved vacancies every ex-serviceman who has put in not less than six months continuous service in the Armed Forces of the Union shall be allowed to deduct the period of such service from his actual age and if the resultant age does not exceed the maximum age limit prescribed for the post/service for which he seeks appointment by more than three years, he shall be deemed to satisfy the conditions regarding age limit. 11. On June 03, 1987, the amendment that has come in Rule 6 after sub-rule (2), the insertion was made in sub-rule (3), which was meant for appointment to any reserved vacancies in Class III posts, a matriculate Ex-serviceman, who has put in not less than 15 years' service in the Armed Forces of the Union may be considered eligible for appointment to the posts for which the essential educational qualification prescribed is graduation. Sub-rule (4) provides for appointment to any reserved vacancies in Class III and Class IV posts, where the prescribed minimum educational qualification is matriculation. Such educational qualification at the discretion of the appointing authority could be relaxed in favour of ex-serviceman, who has passed the Indian Army Class I Examination or its equivalent examination in the Navy or the Air Force, and who has put in at least 15 years of service in the Armed Forces of the Union and is otherwise considered fit to hold the post. 12. 12. Thereafter, the notification which came to be amended on August 22, 1994, the definition of 'ex-serviceman' in clause (c) of Rule 2 requires that the person who has completed five years of service in the Armed Forces of the Union or after serving for a continuous period of six months after attestation otherwise than at his own request shall be deemed to be an ex-serviceman. 13. Thus, what can be noticed is that on August 22, 1994, the last amendment was made in the notification which has come into force from July 01, 1987, whereby those who have served for a continuous period of six months, after attestation otherwise than at his own request shall be deemed to be ex-servicemen. Even if one looks at the definition of ex-serviceman, at the most, it can be said that the requirement of completing five years in the Armed Forces would define a person as an ex-serviceman. 14. What in fact is sought to be relied upon is the notification dated October 04, 2012 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, New Delhi. 14. What in fact is sought to be relied upon is the notification dated October 04, 2012 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, New Delhi. These Rules are called Ex-servicemen (Reemployment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Amendment Rules, 2012, which defines 'Ex-serviceman' as follows: "2(c): An 'ex-serviceman' means a person: (i) who has served in any rank whether as a combatant or non-combatant in the Regular Army, Navy and Air Force of the Indian Union, and (a) who either has retired or relieved or discharged from such service whether at his own request or being relieved by the employer after earning his or her pension, or (b) who has been relieved from such service on medical grounds attributable to military service or circumstances beyond his control and awarded medical or other disability pension; or (c) who has been released from such service as a result of reduction in establishment; (ii) who has been released from such service after completing the specific period of engagement, otherwise than at his own request or by way of dismissal, or discharge on account of misconduct or inefficiency and has been given a gratuity; and includes personnel of the Territorial Army, namely, pension holders for continuous embodied service or broken spells of qualifying service; or (iii) personnel of the Army Postal Service who are part Regular Army and retired from the Army Postal Service without reversion to their parent service with pension, or are released from the Army Post Service on medical grounds attributable to or aggravated by military service or circumstance beyond their control and awarded medical or other disability pension. or (iv) Personnel, who were on deputation in Army Postal Service for more than six months prior to the 14th April, 1987; or (v) Gallantry award winners of the Armed forces including personnel of Territorial Army; or (vi) Ex-recruits boarded out or relieved on medical ground and granted medical disability pension." 15. These Rules apply to ex-servicemen in their reemployment in Central Civil Services and Posts upto the level of Assistant Commandant in all paramilitary forces. These Rules apply to ex-servicemen in their reemployment in Central Civil Services and Posts upto the level of Assistant Commandant in all paramilitary forces. 10% of the vacancies in Posts upto the level of the Assistant Commandant in all paramilitary forces, 10% of the vacancies in Group 'C' posts; and 20% of the vacancies in Group 'D' posts, including permanent vacancies filled initially on a temporary basis and temporary vacancies which are likely to be made permanent or are likely to continue for three months and more, to be filled by direct recruitment in any year are to be reserved for being filled by ex-servicemen. However, these Rules specify that the vacancies in Group 'A' and Group 'B' services or posts are to be filled by direct recruitment, otherwise than on the results of an Open All India Competitive Examination, the upper age limit shall be relaxed by the length of military service increased by three years in the case of ex-servicemen and commissioned officers including Emergency Commissioned Officers or Short Service Commissioned Officers. However, for appointment to any vacancy in Group A and Group B services or posts filled by direct recruitment on the results of an All India Competitive Examination, the ex-servicemen and Commissioned Officers including Emergency commissioned Officers or Short Service Commissioned Officers who have rendered atleast five years military services and have been released from service, otherwise than by way of dismissal or discharge on account of misconduct or inefficiency. 16. The Sainik Welfare Department defines the 'ex-servicemen' in four categories, viz. (i) those released on or after July 01, 1987; (ii) those released on or after July 01, 1979, but before July 01, 1987; (iii) those released on or after July 01, 1979 and (iv) those released before July 01, 1968. In the very first category, it is not specified in the literature produced on record by the respondent-State by way of affidavit-in-reply, as to what are the number of years of service a candidate has to put in Regular Army, Navy or Air Force. In the very first category, it is not specified in the literature produced on record by the respondent-State by way of affidavit-in-reply, as to what are the number of years of service a candidate has to put in Regular Army, Navy or Air Force. In the second category, the person who have served in any rank in the Armed Forces of the Union for a continuous period of not less than six months after attestation, if discharged for reasons other than at their own request or by way of dismissal or discharged on account of misconduct or inefficiency and not less than 5 years of service if discharged at his own request. In the third category, any person who had served in any rank in the Armed forces of the Union for a continuous period of not less than six months after attestation, released therefrom otherwise than by way of dismissal or discharged on account of misconduct or inefficiency. The fourth category also on the same line defines the ex-servicemen. 17. As the minimum period required for getting pension in the Armed Forces of Union is 15 years, possibly the definition of the ex-serviceman in the first category can be construed to require the period of 15 years for the purpose of being entitled to reservation under this category. However, as rightly pointed out from the petitioner's side that Rules, 1975, stipulate the requirement of continuous period of six months' service after attestation for seeking the benefit of age relaxation. Rule 5 of the said notification specifies that every ex-servicemen who has put in not less than six months' continuous service in the Armed Forces of the Union shall be allowed to deduct the period of such service from his actual age and if the resultant age does not exceed the minimum age limit prescribed for the post/service for which he seeks appointment by more than three years, he shall be deemed to satisfy the condition regarding age limit; whereas Rule 6 speaks of special provision under which the ex-servicemen could be exempted from educational qualification, as required for the post. 18. 18. The first amendment which took place in the year 1987 reflects modification in Rule 6 that in no manner is helpful to the cause of the petitioner as the petitioner herein has completed his graduation, and therefore, there is no question of seeking relaxation in the minimum educational qualification relaxation. 19. With regard to the second amendment of August 22, 1994, the introduction of Rule 2(c) provides that the benefit under the category of ex-servicemen is to see in conjunction with Rule 5, which speaks of age relaxation. Rule 5 so far has not been amended. 20. In the opinion of this Court, the respondents have erroneously placed reliance on Rule 6 of the notification of the year 1987. The respondent-State also does not have any answer to the earlier select list produced. The selection made in the earlier years where persons having rendered service of less than 15 years in the Armed Forces have been selected. Bearing in mind the age of such candidates, they could not have possibly rendered 15 years of service at the time of recruitment of Police Sub-Inspector in the year 2013. It is averred by the petitioner that there had been candidates who had been selected in the category of ex-servicemen, who had though not completed 15 years of service and their case was considered by the respondent-authorities, which has not been controverted by the respondents. From the list, it has been pointed out that the guidelines for consideration of age relaxation in the case of ex-servicemen since was the same, as the guidelines in the present advertisement for recruitment in the year 2015, this discrimination could not be sustained. 21. In the present case, much emphasis is laid on the aspect that the Rules meant for Central Civil Services, 2012, need to be regarded as part and parcel of the State Rules for having been incorporated in it and, therefore, being made applicable in the present case. The Court shall also need to consider at this stage the principle of incorporation by reference to appreciate the say of the respondent. 22. The law on the subject is amply clear. When the earlier Act or some of its provisions are incorporated by reference into a later Act, the provisions so incorporated become part and parcel of the later Act, as if they had been bodily transposed into it. 22. The law on the subject is amply clear. When the earlier Act or some of its provisions are incorporated by reference into a later Act, the provisions so incorporated become part and parcel of the later Act, as if they had been bodily transposed into it. Whether it is incorporated wholly or partially or whether a former statute is referred merely is a question of construction. The Apex Court in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vasantrao and others, reported in AIR 2002 SC 3499 . So considering the question as to whether a particular legislation falls in the category of referential legislation or legislation by incorporation to hold that it depends upon the language used in the statute in which the reference is made to the earlier decision and other relevant circumstances. It would be profitable to reproduce relevant paragraphs of the said decision as under: "31. We shall now proceed to consider whether the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as modified by the State Acts stand incorporated in the State Acts or whether there is a mere reference or citation of the Land Acquisition Act in the State Acts. The law on the subject is well settled. When an earlier Act or certain of its provisions are incorporated by reference into a later Act, the provisions so incorporated become part and parcel of the later Act as if they had been bodily transposed into it. The incorporation of an earlier Act into a later Act is a legislative device adopted for the sake of convenience in order to avoid verbatim reproduction of the provisions of the earlier Act into the later. But this must be distinguished from a referential legislation which merely contains a reference or the citation of the provisions of an earlier statute. In a case where a statute is incorporated, by reference, into a second statute, the repeal of the first statute by a third does not affect the second. The later Act along with the incorporated provisions of the earlier Act constitute an independent legislation which is not modified or repealed by a modification or repeal of the earlier Act. However, where in later Act there is a mere reference to an earlier Act, the modification, repeal or amendment of the statute that is referred, will also have an effect on the statute in which it is referred. However, where in later Act there is a mere reference to an earlier Act, the modification, repeal or amendment of the statute that is referred, will also have an effect on the statute in which it is referred. It is equally well settled that the question whether a former statute is merely referred to or cited in a later statute, or whether it is wholly or partially incorporated therein, is a question of construction. 32. In Secretary of State v. Hindustan Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd., AIR 1931 PC 149 , the Privy Council observed:- "In this country it is accepted that where a statute is incorporated by reference into a second statute, the repeal of the first statute does not affect the second: see the cases collected in "Craies on Statute law," Edn. 3, pp. 349-50. This doctrine finds expression in a common-form section which regularly appears in the Amending and Repealing Acts which are passed from time to time in India. The section runs. The repeal by this Act of any enactment shall not affect any Act........in which such enactment has been applied, incorporated or referred to." The independent existence of the two Acts is therefore recognised; despite the death of the parent Act, its offspring survives in the incorporating Act. Though no such saving clause appears in the General Clauses Act, their Lordships think that the principle involved is as applicable in India as it is in this country. It seems to be no less logical to hold that where certain provisions from an existing Act have been incorporated into a subsequent Act, no addition to the former Act, which is not expressly made applicable to the subsequent Act, can be deemed to be incorporated in it, at all events if it is possible for the subsequent Act to function effectually without the addition." 33. In Re: Wood's Estate, Ex parte, Works and Buildings Commrs. (1886) 31 Ch D 607 at page 615 Lord Esher, M.R. observed:- "If a subsequent Act brings into itself by reference some of the clauses of a former Act, the legal effect of that, as has often been held, is to write those sections into the new Act as if they had been actually written in it with the pen, or printed in it." 34. In U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and another (supra) this Court observed:- "17. In U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam and another (supra) this Court observed:- "17. A subsequent legislation often makes a reference to the earlier legislation so as to make the provisions of the earlier legislation applicable to matters covered by the later legislation. Such a legislation may either be (i) a referential legislation which merely contains a reference to or the citation of the provisions of the earlier statute; or (ii) a legislation by incorporation whereunder the provisions of the earlier legislation to which reference is made are incorporated into the later legislation by reference. If it is a referential legislation the provisions of the earlier legislation to which reference is made in the subsequent legislation would be applicable as it stands on the date of application of such earlier legislation to matters referred to in the subsequent legislation. In other words, any amendment made in the earlier legislation after the date of enactment of the subsequent legislation would also be applicable. But if it is a legislation by incorporation the rule of construction is that repeal of the earlier statute which is incorporated does not affect operation of the subsequent statute in which it has been incorporated. So also any amendment in the statute which has been so incorporated that is made after the date of incorporation of such statute does not affect the subsequent statute in which it is incorporated and the provisions of the statute which have been incorporated would remain the same as they were at the time of incorporation and the subsequent amendments are not to be read in the subsequent legislation." 23. The Supreme Court recently in the case of C.N. Paramsivam and another v. Sunrise Plaza through Partner and others, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 460 , was considering the scope and nature of legislation by incorporation and held that it is a device often resorted to for convenience. It has the effect that provisions so incorporated are treated to have been incorporated in the subsequent legislation for the first time. Such incorporated provisions become an integral part of the incorporating statute. This phenomenon, according to the Supreme Court, is widely prevalent and has been the subject-matter of judicial pronouncements. It would be profitable to regurgitate some of the observations of the Apex Court, which read as under: "17. Such incorporated provisions become an integral part of the incorporating statute. This phenomenon, according to the Supreme Court, is widely prevalent and has been the subject-matter of judicial pronouncements. It would be profitable to regurgitate some of the observations of the Apex Court, which read as under: "17. Legislation by incorporation is a device to which legislatures often take resort for the sake of convenience. The phenomenon is widely prevalent and has been the subject matter of judicial pronouncements by Courts in this country as much as Courts abroad. Justice G.P. Singh in his celebrated work on Principles of Statutory Interpretation has explained the concept in the following words: "Incorporation of an earlier Act into a later Act is a legislative device adopted for the sake of convenience in order to avoid verbatim reproduction of the provisions of the earlier Act into the later. When an earlier Act or certain of its provisions are incorporated by reference into a later Act, the provisions so incorporated become part and parcel of the later Act as if they had been 'bodily transposed into it. The effect of incorporation is admirably stated by Lord Esher, M.R.: 'If a subsequent Act brings into itself by reference some of the clauses of a former Act, the legal effect of that, as has often been held, is to write those sections into the new Act as if they had been actually written in it with the pen, or printed in it. Even though only particular sections of an earlier Act are incorporated into later, in construing the incorporated sections it may be at times necessary and permissible to refer to other parts of the earlier statute which are not incorporated. As was stated by Lord Blackburn: "When a single section of an Act of Parliament is introduced into another Act, I think it must be read in the sense it bore in the original Act from which it was taken, and that consequently it is perfectly legitimate to refer to all the rest of that Act in order to ascertain what the section meant, though those other sections are not incorporated in the new Act." 18. In Ram Kirpal Bhagat and Ors. In Ram Kirpal Bhagat and Ors. v. State of Bihar (1969) 3 SCC 471 : ( AIR 1970 SC 951 ) this Court examined the effect of bringing into an Act the provisions of an earlier Act and held that the legislation by incorporation of the provisions of an earlier Act into a subsequent Act is that the provisions so incorporated are treated to have been incorporated in the subsequent legislation for the first time. This Court observed (Para 18 of AIR): "The effect of bringing into an Act the provisions of an earlier Act is to introduce the incorporated Sections of the earlier Act into the subsequent Act as if those provisions have been enacted in it for the first time. The nature of such a piece of legislation was explained by Lord Esher M.R. in Re Wood's Estate [1886] 31 Ch.D. 607 that "if some clauses of a former Act were brought into the subsequent Act the legal effect was to write those Sections into the new Act just as if they had been written in it with the pen". 19. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. (1979) 2 SCC 529 : ( AIR 1979 SC 798 ) where this Court held that once the incorporation is made, the provisions incorporated become an integral part of the statute in which it is transposed and thereafter there is no need to refer to the statute from which the incorporation is made and any subsequent amendment made in it has no effect on the incorporating statute. The following passage is in this regard apposite: "The effect of incorporation is as if the provisions were written out in the incorporating statute and were a part of it. Legislation by incorporation is a common legislative device employed by the legislature, where the legislature for convenience of drafting incorporates provisions from an existing statute by reference to that statute instead of setting out for itself at length the provisions which it desires to adopt. Once the incorporation is made, the provision incorporated becomes an integral part of the statute in which it is transposed and thereafter there is no need to refer to the statute from which the incorporation is made and any subsequent amendment made in it has no effect on the incorporating statute." 20. Once the incorporation is made, the provision incorporated becomes an integral part of the statute in which it is transposed and thereafter there is no need to refer to the statute from which the incorporation is made and any subsequent amendment made in it has no effect on the incorporating statute." 20. We may also refer to the decisions of this Court in Onkarlal Nandlal v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (1985) 4 SCC 404 : (AIR 1986 SC 2149), Mary Roy and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (1986) 2 SCC 209 : ( AIR 1986 SC 1011 ), Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vasantrao and Ors. and Jaswantibai and Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 657 : ( AIR 2002 SC 3499 : 2002 AIR SCW 4095), and M/s. Surana Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and Ors. (1999) 4 SCC 306 : ( AIR 1999 SC 1455 : 1999 AIR SCW 1146), which have reiterated the above proposition of law." 24. The above principles are sought to be made applicable in the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader to the effect that if a subsequent Act brings into itself by reference to some of the clauses of a former Act, the legal effect of that, as held in catena of decisions, is to write those sections into the new Act just as if they had been actually written in it with the pen, or printed in it, and, the moment you have those clauses in the later Act, you have no occasion to refer to the former Act at all. There is a rule of construction that, where a statute is incorporated by reference into a second statute, the repeal of the first statute by a third statute does not affect the second. In the present case, the earlier Rules are not incorporated. There is no reference of them so as to become integral part of the rules in which they are transposed. The subsequent amendment made in the Rules do not have any reference. Therefore, it can be said that in absence of any incorporation, there are no provisions or rules to become an integral part of the fresh rules. It is only when the incorporation is made that it becomes a statute in which it is transposed. 25. The subsequent amendment made in the Rules do not have any reference. Therefore, it can be said that in absence of any incorporation, there are no provisions or rules to become an integral part of the fresh rules. It is only when the incorporation is made that it becomes a statute in which it is transposed. 25. Neither the previous Rules nor those applicable to the employees of the Central Government are incorporated by the legislative reference. Therefore, it needs to be held that what can be made applicable in the present case are the rules of 1994, which require the continuous service of six months after attestation. Even for relaxation of educational qualification, the period of five years is the required period for being considered in the category of ex-serviceman. The petitioner is right in contending that the respondents' act of not including him in the category of ex-serviceman at the time of oral interview is illegal and arbitrary, and deserves interference. It is also discriminatory inasmuch as those who have been appointed in the category of ex-serviceman in the year 2013 never possessed 15 years of service. Therefore also, the action of respondents to insist on 15 years of service without such requirement under the rules meant for the persons applying under the category of ex-serviceman for any post in the State of Gujarat would surely deserve interference. 26. The learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Rashesh Rindani appearing for the respondent No. 1-State has submitted that the petitioner's physical test as well as written test have been completed and he has cleared both the tests. 27. For the rest of the eligible candidates, the Recruitment Board has already conducted the oral interview. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, the Board shall have to meet once again to conduct the oral interview of the petitioner. 28. In wake of foregoing submissions and discussion, the present petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is held to be eligible candidate in view of the age relaxation available to the category of ex-serviceman. While allowing the present petition and holding the petitioner eligible in the category of ex-serviceman, the respondents are directed to keep one post vacant while preparing/publishing the select list, which is not as yet published. The petitioner is held to be eligible candidate in view of the age relaxation available to the category of ex-serviceman. While allowing the present petition and holding the petitioner eligible in the category of ex-serviceman, the respondents are directed to keep one post vacant while preparing/publishing the select list, which is not as yet published. The interview of the petitioner shall be conducted within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the outcome of such interview, the inclusion of the petitioner may be made in the select list. Placement of the petitioner in such list shall be governed by the common merit.