JUDGMENT Rajesh Kumar, J. - Heard counsels for the parties. 2. The present writ petition had been filed for direction upon the respondent no. 2 to consider and give weight-age of experience acquired by the petitioner during the period from June, 1994 to December, 1998 and further work experience from November, 2000 to August, 2001 and after giving due weight-age, his result should be published. 3. As he had participated in the selection process initiated vide Advertisement No. 01 of 2010 dated 31.03.2010 (Annexure-1) for the 4th grade post in the Respondents-Department. As per the petitioner, his date of birth is 10.12.1978 and on June 1994, his age was less than 18 years and he had been engaged by forest department as a casual worker and accordingly worked from June, 1994 to December, 1998. Respondents-officials had taken work from the petitioner as an employee and recognised his service and also salary had been released. 4. As per advertisement (Annexure-1), the petitioner was entitled for certain points for gained experience. The experience of the petitioner had been counted and accordingly result had been published (Annexure-3). 5. The petitioner has claimed points for the experience which he has gained while working with the forest officials from June, 1994 to December, 1998. The case of the petitioner is that the experience has earlier taken into consideration and accordingly he has been awarded 16 points. And accordingly he has obtained total marks of 42.20. But, subsequently, the points given under the head of experience had been removed by Annexure-5 that to without giving any notice to the petitioner. 6. Counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the State. The experience acquired by the petitioner has been removed as his age is below 18 years. On being asked a specific question regarding prohibition, the State has failed to give any answer. 7. The State itself had taken work from the petitioner as a daily wager in age between 16 to 18 years and had paid wages. In that view of the matter, State cannot deny the benefit of experience acquired by the petitioner. 8. Further, there is no prohibition in law that a person cannot work, if he is below the age of 18 years. Rather, there is a Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986, which prohibits any person to work below the age of 14 years. 8. Further, there is no prohibition in law that a person cannot work, if he is below the age of 18 years. Rather, there is a Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986, which prohibits any person to work below the age of 14 years. In between 15 to 18 years, there is no law prohibiting any person from working. 9. The reason for non-grant of benefit of experience to the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law. If a person is legally entitled to work and has legally worked for a period and by that he has acquired the experience, then that experience cannot be excluded, when such benefit is extendable to a person as per the parameters of the recruitment process. 10. In view of above discussion, the matter is remitted to the concern authorities with a direction to count the experience of the petitioner, while he has worked under the forest department as a casual worker from June, 1994 to December, 1998 and given due weight-age as per the recruitment rules. 11. After giving such weight-age, the result of the petitioner should be published and if he is otherwise entitled for appointment, the appointment should be extended. With the above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.