PRABHU DAYAL SESMA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

PRABHU DAYAL SESMA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

A candidate is deemed to have attained the specified age prescribed in the rules on the day preceding the anniversary of his birth. Therefore, since the appellant was born on January 2, 1956, he attained the age of 28 years at midnight of January 1, 1984, making him ineligible as per Rule 11-B of the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962.

Parties
Appellant: Prabhu Dayal Sesma; Respondents: State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 August 1986
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Age Determination for Public Service, Interpretation of Statutory Age Requirements, Recruitment Rules in Public Services

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prabhu Dayal Sesma

Appellant

State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had attained the age of 28 years as of January 1, 1984 for eligibility under Rule 11-B of the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962
  2. 2 How the computation of statutory age should be carried out in the absence of an express provision

Ratio Decidendi

A candidate is deemed to have attained the specified age prescribed in the rules on the day preceding the anniversary of his birth. Therefore, since the appellant was born on January 2, 1956, he attained the age of 28 years at midnight of January 1, 1984, making him ineligible as per Rule 11-B of the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs