ORDER : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the cut off date (01.01.2025), which the respondent – Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) has fixed for the age limit of a candidate. 2. Inviting Court’s attention towards the backdrop facts, Mr. Hanuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the recruitment Notification No. 2607 was issued on 06.10.2023, according to which, the candidates desirous of vying for the post of Animal Attendant were supposed to submit their online application form from 13.10.2023. He underscored that in said recruitment notification, the cut off date was fixed as 01.01.2024 for the purpose of determining the age of the candidates. 3. Learned counsel submitted that perhaps on account of assembly elections, the recruitment process was kept in abeyance and thereafter, by way of subsequent Notification No. 2710 dated 12.01.2024, a corrigendum in the form of amended advertisement was issued, in which the relevant date for the purpose of determining the age limit came to be altered to 01.01.2025 and the window for submitting the forms was opened between 19.01.2024 and 17.02.2024. 4. Informing that the petitioner’s date of birth is 19.06.1984, learned counsel submitted that as per the Notification initially issued (on 06.10.2023), the petitioner was well within the upper age ceiling and thus eligible/entitled to apply but as a consequence of the amended advertisement which was notified on 12.01.2024, the petitioner became ineligible, as the cut off date has been changed to 01.01.2025. 5. While maintaining that the subsequent Notification dated 12.01.2024 was only an amendment in the earlier notification, learned counsel argued that for whatever reasons, if the Board was required to extend the date of submitting application form, the cut off date could not have been altered and in any case the same could not have been altered in a way that the eligible candidates become ineligible. 6. Learned counsel further argued that the cut off date, which has been altered by the Board, is not in conformity with Clause (xv) of Rule 10 of The Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Subordinate Service Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1977’), according to which, a person who was within the age limit as on 31.12.2020 was held to be within the age limit upto 31.12.2024. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Bhati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – Board firstly raised an objection that the petitioner has rushed to this Court without first submitting his application form. It was argued that the last date of submitting application form was 17.02.2024, whereas, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition on 14.02.2024, presuming that his application form will not be accepted and his candidature would be rejected. In other words, learned counsel argued that the petitioner ought to have submitted his application form and waited for the decision of the Board about his eligibility. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent – Board then joined the issue on merit and by inviting Court’s attention towards Rule 10 of the Rules of 1977 argued that as per the provision relating to the age limit, a candidate who has attained the age of 40 years on the first day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of application, shall be ineligible. He argued that since the last date of submitting application form has been shifted to 17.02.2024, naturally, the provision relating to upper age limit had to be modified or suitably changed. He emphasised that whatever the Board has done, has done in order to follow the mandate of the Rules of 1977. He, thus, submitted that since the date altered by the Board (01.01.2025) is in accordance with Rule 10 of the Rules of 1977, no fault can be found in the action of the Board. 9. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble The Supreme Court rendered in the case of Hirandra Kumar vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Anr. (2020) 17 SCC 401 and submitted that the petition in hand does not warrant any interference. 10. In rejoinder, Mr. Hanuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Notification dated 23.09.2008 issued by the Department of Personnel and contended that as per this notification, if the recruitment is not held for three years, candidates are required to be treated as eligible in respect of his/her age in the next following recruitment, if he/she has not become overage by more than 3 years. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the stay application and given my thoughtful consideration. 12. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the stay application and given my thoughtful consideration. 12. So far as the first objection raised by the Board that the petitioner ought to have first submitted his application form and then, if his candidature was rejected, should have approached this Court is concerned, does not much appeal to this Court. If the provisions of amended Notification dated 12.01.2024 are taken into account, apparently, the petitioner has become overage, as the cut off date has been fixed as 01.01.2025. 13. Hence, even if the contention of the petitioner is not accepted that he was unable to submit his online application form, because of the prefixed parameters of the program for the online application form, then also, according to this Court, if upon a simple reading of the advertisement, a candidate feels that he would be treated overage on account of the criteria given in advertisement/amended advertisement, he can well invoke writ jurisdiction of the High Court, with a plea that the criteria so fixed by the Board or the recruitment agency is arbitrary or not in conformity with the law. 14. Without waiting for rejection, if for abundant caution the petitioner has preferred the writ petition, he cannot be accused of jumping the gun. His petition cannot be thrown as premature, particularly when the respondent – Board has filed a reply with a specific plea that the petitioner has become overage. 15. The last date of submitting application form was 17.02.2024 and the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition on 14.02.2024; his rights, if any, flowing from the statute cannot be foreclosed, simply because he has chosen to prefer the present writ petition without filling or choosing to fill the application form. Furthermore, instant writ petition, for the very question involved, merits consideration and detailed deliberations. 16. It is noteworthy that the respondent Board has filed a reply to the writ petition, in which it has not only justified the cut off date (01.01.2025) but has also come up with a stance that the petitioner is ineligible. 17. Such being the position, regardless of the first contention of Mr. Bhati, this Court has to examine the petitioner’s eligibility and resolve the issue, which has cropped up for the Court’s consideration. 18. 17. Such being the position, regardless of the first contention of Mr. Bhati, this Court has to examine the petitioner’s eligibility and resolve the issue, which has cropped up for the Court’s consideration. 18. Moving on to the merit of the case, uncontroverted facts are that, the recruitment Notification was firstly issued on 06.10.2023, in which portal for submitting online application was supposed to be opened from 13.10.2023 to 11.11.2023; the process of recruitment was kept in hibernation for some time, which was later revived on 12.01.2024 when the amended notification came to be issued. The bone of contention is, para No.3 of the subsequent notification dated 12.01.2024, which reads thus:- ^^3- mDr foKkiu ds fcUnq la[;k 09 vk;q esa vkosndksa dh vk;q dh x.kuk fnukad 01-01-2024 ls fd;s tkus dk izko/kku fd;k x;k Fkk] fu;eksa esa mYysf[kr vuqlkj vkosnu djus dh vafre frfFk ds i'pkr~ vkus okyh vkxkeh tuojh dh izFke fnukad ls vk;q dh x.kuk dh tkrh gSA vr% vc vkosndksa dh vk;q dh x.kuk fnukad 01-01-2025 ls dh tkosxhA** 19. The Board may be technically correct in realigning the cut off date in tandem with the spirit of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1977, but in the circumstances like the one in hands, adhering to rather sticking to one part of the Rules dehors other provision and law may bring iniquitous if not disastrous results. 20. Let us take a case in which the last date initially fixed was say 25th of December of a particular year and for whatever reason, if the last date gets extended, to any date say 5th of January of the subsequent year, then, this Court would ask a question to the respondents “would they extend the cut off date by a year and render the candidates, who were otherwise eligible, to be ineligible?”. 21. The answer would naturally be in negative – that can never be an idea/intention of any Rules. If the literal interpretation given to the Rules leads to some ambiguity; injustice; inconvenience; hardship or inequity, then in all such events, avoiding the literal meaning, a purposive interpretation is required to be given in such a fashion that the purpose of legislation is fulfilled. Rules have to be interpreted in a way that vanquishes or suppresses the mischief and furthers the cause or advances the remedy. A harmonious construction has to be given to the rules. Rules have to be interpreted in a way that vanquishes or suppresses the mischief and furthers the cause or advances the remedy. A harmonious construction has to be given to the rules. And accordingly, a candidate, who is otherwise eligible on the date of issuance of an advertisement cannot be scooped out of the zone of consideration by subsequent notification, simply because of fortuitous circumstance of postponement of the process. 22. As a matter of correct approach, the Board should have provided that all the candidates who are/were eligible as per the initial advertisement (dated 06.10.2023) shall be treated eligible, while providing the cut off date to be 01.01.2025. That would have perhaps served the purpose and avoided the hardship and inconvenience meted out to the candidates. 23. It is to be noted that while making reference of the Notification dated 23.09.2008 issued by the State Government and Para No.8 of the Advertisement dated 06.10.2023, the petitioner has taken a specific plea that he has not become overage and the said Para has been responded by the respondent – Board with a specific stand that since the cut off date has been changed to 01.01.2025, the petitioner is ineligible on the ground of age. 24. The stand of the respondent – Board is clearly contrary to what has been provided in Para 8 of the advertisement dated 06.10.2023 and the Notification dated 23.09.2008 issued by the State Government, which notification has been inserted in the form of XVth proviso to Rule 10 of the Rules of 1977. 25. Clause (xv) or the xvth proviso the Rule 10 of the Rules of 1977 cannot be given a go by and opening part of Rule 10 cannot be read divorced of this proviso. This Court would like to quote the same:- “Provided - ........ ........ (xv) the person who was within the age limit on 31.12.2020 shall be deemed to be within the age limit upto 31.12.2024.” 26. In relation to aforesaid clause (xv), contention of Mr. Bhati, learned counsel for the respondent – Board was that such insertion was made vide notification dated 23.09.2022, perhaps keeping the Pandemic (COVID-19) in mind. 27. ........ (xv) the person who was within the age limit on 31.12.2020 shall be deemed to be within the age limit upto 31.12.2024.” 26. In relation to aforesaid clause (xv), contention of Mr. Bhati, learned counsel for the respondent – Board was that such insertion was made vide notification dated 23.09.2022, perhaps keeping the Pandemic (COVID-19) in mind. 27. Neither the language of above provision, nor any material placed on record shows that such provision was inserted in order to ward off the adversities or difficulties likely to be faced by the candidates on account of spread of Pandemic. Even if that be so, if the State Government in its wisdom has provided in express terms that the person, who was within the age limit on 31.12.2020 shall be deemed to be within the age limit upto 31.12.2024, it has to be given its natural meaning and effect. The recruiting agency cannot be permitted to scan or read the mind of the legislature to non suit the candidates, who are otherwise eligible. 28. The judgment which Mr. Bhati has so zealously relied, is of little help to him because, that holds that the recruiting agency can fix a cut off date. There is no quarrel about the Board’s power of fixing the cut off date – the moot question is – in a case like the one, this Court is in seisin, if the date of submitting application form gets extended for whatever reason, whether the cut off date for determining age limit can be altered or postponed and if yes, then can it be detrimental to the candidates who were eligible per-force the terms of the original advertisement? 29. It is pertinent that the earlier notification dated 06.10.2023 was neither recalled nor a fresh advertisement was issued. 30. The respondent’s stand that the petitioner has become overage, if his age is calculated as on 01.01.2025 is, therefore, clearly in the teeth of (xv) proviso to Rule 10 and the same cannot be countenanced. 31. There is yet another aspect of the matter. If seen carefully, it is clear that the subsequent notification dated 12.01.2024 is only an amendment notification ¼la'kksf/kr foKfIr½ whereby a few changes have been introduced, but the flesh, blood and soul of the earlier notification has remained intact. 31. There is yet another aspect of the matter. If seen carefully, it is clear that the subsequent notification dated 12.01.2024 is only an amendment notification ¼la'kksf/kr foKfIr½ whereby a few changes have been introduced, but the flesh, blood and soul of the earlier notification has remained intact. It will be apt to reproduce the relevant part of the advertisement dated 06.10.2023, which runs as under:- ^^8- vk;q%& vkosnd 1] tuojh 2024 dks 18 o"kZ dh vk;q izkIr dj pqdk gks rFkk 40 o"kZ dk ugha gqvk gksA jkT; ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 23-09-2022 }kjk fofHkUu lsok fu;eksa esa la'kks/ku dj vk;q lhek esa NwV nh gSA blh vuqlkj vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa NwV fuEukuqlkj vkSj ns; gksxh %& The person who was within the age limit on 31.12.2020 shall be deemed to be within the age limit upto 31.12.2024.” 32. The subsequent notification dated 12.01.2024, therefore, has the effect of changing the cut off date of 1st January, 2024 to 1st January, 2025 and remaining part of the basic advertisement notification remains unaltered. Hence, as per Para No. 8 of the advertisement dated 06.10.2023, the petitioner cannot be said to be ineligible. 33. As a consequence of discussion foregoing, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has not become overage and is, therefore, eligible to apply pursuant to the recruitment notification under consideration. 34. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 35. The respondent – Board is directed to accept petitioner’s offline application form and allow him to take part in the further process, including written examination. 36. The petitioner shall approach the Secretary of the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board on or before 20.05.2024 and furnish offline application form to be facilitated by the Board on payment of requisite fee; subject of course to fulfilling other eligibility criteria, the petitioner’s application form shall be accepted and acted upon. 37. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.