# J 1S.C.R.316 RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS - **Citation:** [2016] 1 S.C.R. 316 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2016-02-08 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 274 of2016 - **Bench:** A.K. Sikri, Abhay Manohar Sapre - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/j-1s-c-r-316-richa-mishra-v-state-of-chhattisgarh-and-ors-30923 - **Pages:** 27 ## Headnote .._')ervice latt•: Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 - r. 4 - Chhallisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000 - 1: 8 - Conditions of eligibility for direct recruitme/1f - Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gaze/led) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2005 - State Services Examination Rules. 2003 - r. 5 - D Appointment - Post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.J - Appellant-Excise Sub Inspector participated in the selection process and qualified at each stage of the examination process - However, name not included in the list of successjiil .candidates as she had already crossed the age limit of 25 years - Writ petition by the E F appellant on the ground that she was entitled to the benefit of age relaxdtion as per r. 8 of the 2000 Rules, on account of being'· Government Servant - Dismissal of writ petition holding that she entered the Government job after the cut-off date and as such was not a government employee on the relevant date - Thereafter, writ appeal claiming benefit of age relaxation ulr. 4 of the 1997 Rules wherein relaxation of ten years is available to women candidates in addition to other relaxation in age - Writ appeal also dismissed holding that r. 8 of 2000 Rules would prevail upon 1997 Rules - On appeal, held: Recruitment was rightly undertaken under Rules, 2000 -Appellant entitled to age relaxation in upper age limit by JO years as provided to women candidates in r. 4 of 1997 Rules read with G Examination Rules, 2003, notwithstanding the fact that Rules, 2000 do not contain any provision for relaxation qua women candidates - Rules 1997 are specific Rules, and r. 4 are specially meant to give benefit of age relaxation to women in public service and post in connection with the affairs of the State - Examination Rules, 2003 H which specifically contain a provision for applicability of Rules, 316 RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. 317 1997 would be applicable for the examination - Thus, appellant A eligible to be considered for the post of Dy.S.P -Jssuonce of direction to respondents to appoint appellant as Dy.S.P w.e.f the date her iuniors in the merit lis_t were appointed. Allowing the appeal, the Court. HELD: 1.1 The process of selection started before Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2005 were promulgated with the requisitions dated September 27, 2004 and March 26, 2005 sent by the State Government to the CPSE. At that time, Rules, 2000 were in vogue. For this reason, even in the requisition it was mentioned that appointments are to be made under Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000. Further, it is also an admitted fact that the vacancies in-question which were to be .filled were for the period prior to 2005. Such vacancies needed to be filled in as per those Rules, i.e. Rules, 2000. [Para 19][331-C-E] 1.2 The State sent the requisition specifically mentioning that the recruitment has to be under Rules, 2000. This was so provided even in the advertisement. The appellant never challenged the advertisement and contended that after the promulgation of Rules, 2005 the recruitment should have been under Rules, 2005 and not Rules, 2000. Therefore, the appellant is even precluded from arguing that recruitment should have been made under Rules, 2005. Thus, the recruitment was rightly made as per Rules, 2002. [Paras 22, 23] [332-G; 333-A-B] 1.3 Rule 8 of Rules, 2000, which, inter alia, lays down the provision pertaining to upper and lower age of the candidates, does not make any specific provision for relaxation of age in respect of women candidates. Note (2) appended to Rule 8 provides that in no other case, age limit will be relaxed. Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 read with State Services Examination Rules, 2003 would get attracted and as these Rules ## Text _Characters 0–39,725 of 63,832. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39725 for what follows._ A B c (2016J 1S.C.R.316 RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 274 of2016) FEBRUARY 08, 2016 [A.K. SIKRI AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) .._')ervice latt•: Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 - r. 4 - Chhallisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000 - 1: 8 - Conditions of eligibility for direct recruitme/1f - Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gaze/led) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2005 - State Services Examination Rules. 2003 - r. 5 - D Appointment - Post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.J - Appellant-Excise Sub Inspector participated in the selection process and qualified at each stage of the examination process - However, name not included in the list of successjiil .candidates as she had already crossed the age limit of 25 years - Writ petition by the E F appellant on the ground that she was entitled to the benefit of age relaxdtion as per r. 8 of the 2000 Rules, on account of being'· Government Servant - Dismissal of writ petition holding that she entered the Government job after the cut-off date and as such was not a government employee on the relevant date - Thereafter, writ appeal claiming benefit of age relaxation ulr. 4 of the 1997 Rules wherein relaxation of ten years is available to women candidates in addition to other relaxation in age - Writ appeal also dismissed holding that r. 8 of 2000 Rules would prevail upon 1997 Rules - On appeal, held: Recruitment was rightly undertaken under Rules, 2000 -Appellant entitled to age relaxation in upper age limit by JO years as provided to women candidates in r. 4 of 1997 Rules read with G Examination Rules, 2003, notwithstanding the fact that Rules, 2000 do not contain any provision for relaxation qua women candidates - Rules 1997 are specific Rules, and r. 4 are specially meant to give benefit of age relaxation to women in public service and post in connection with the affairs of the State - Examination Rules, 2003 H which specifically contain a provision for applicability of Rules, 316 RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. 317 1997 would be applicable for the examination - Thus, appellant A eligible to be considered for the post of Dy.S.P -Jssuonce of direction to respondents to appoint appellant as Dy.S.P w.e.f the date her iuniors in the merit lis_t were appointed. Allowing the appeal, the Court. HELD: 1.1 The process of selection started before Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2005 were promulgated with the requisitions dated September 27, 2004 and March 26, 2005 sent by the State Government to the CPSE. At that time, Rules, 2000 were in vogue. For this reason, even in the requisition it was mentioned that appointments are to be made under Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000. Further, it is also an admitted fact that the vacancies in-question which were to be .filled were for the period prior to 2005. Such vacancies needed to be filled in as per those Rules, i.e. Rules, 2000. [Para 19][331-C-E] 1.2 The State sent the requisition specifically mentioning that the recruitment has to be under Rules, 2000. This was so provided even in the advertisement. The appellant never challenged the advertisement and contended that after the promulgation of Rules, 2005 the recruitment should have been under Rules, 2005 and not Rules, 2000. Therefore, the appellant is even precluded from arguing that recruitment should have been made under Rules, 2005. Thus, the recruitment was rightly made as per Rules, 2002. [Paras 22, 23] [332-G; 333-A-B] 1.3 Rule 8 of Rules, 2000, which, inter alia, lays down the provision pertaining to upper and lower age of the candidates, does not make any specific provision for relaxation of age in respect of women candidates. Note (2) appended to Rule 8 provides that in no other case, age limit will be relaxed. Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 read with State Services Examination Rules, 2003 would get attracted and as these Rules make a specific provision for providing of age relaxation upto ten years that is to be given to women candidates. Rules, 1997 are specific Rules, specially meant to give benefit of age relaxation to women in public service and post in connection with the affairs of the State. B c D E F G H 318 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R. These Rules are statutory iu nature framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Such a special provision is made in favour of females in consonance with the Constitutional spirit contained in Article 15(3). The salutary purpose and objective behind promulgating ·Rules, 1997 is manifest and can be clearly discerned. It is to encourage women, hitherto known as weaker section, to become working women, by taking up different vocations, including public employment. It would naturally lead to empowerment of w11men, which is the need of the hour. Empowerment of women is perceived as equipping them to be economically independent, self-reliant, with positive esteem to enable them to face any situation and they should be able to participate in the development activities. [Para 25, 26][333-GH)[334-A-D; 335-E] 1.4 When such affirmative actions are taken by lawmaker, in the form of subordinate legislation, they need to be enforced appropriately so that the purpose that is intended is suitably achieved. Seen in this context, Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 is to be interpreted to have universal application when it comes to women candidates seeking appointment in public service and post in connection with the affairs of the State of Chhattisgarh. After all, that is th.e primary purpose behind enacting the said Rule having statutory character. [Para 27) [335-F-G] . 1.5 The competitive examination for recruitment to the post of Dy.S.P. was conducted under the State Services Examination Rules, 2003. Rule 5 of the said Rules deals with eligibility conditions. Apart from prescribing nationality, minimum educational qualification etc., it specifically lays down provision relating to age of the candidates. After prescribing minimum and maximum age limits as eligibility condition for appearing in the examinations, proviso to this provision of age empowers the State Government to vary the lower and upper age limits for any of the services included in these Rules looking to the exigencies of services. This Rule also makes provision for relaxation in the upper age limit in certain cases. For women candidates, a provision is specifically made providing that as per Rules, 1997, 10 years age relaxation would be given to women candidates. It can, therefore, be clearly inferred that incorporation in the manner aforesaid Rules, 1997 were made applicable for the examination RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. in question and in this way the lacuna in Rules, 2000 also got filled up. It would not be too much presumptuous to say that omission of Rules, 1997 in Rule 8 of Rules, 2000 was merely accident.al and it was not a case of casus omissus. Because of this reason, said omission was also rectified while enacting Rules, 2UU5 by making a specific provision in Rule 8(1) of Rules, 2005. [Pa ·a 29, 30] [337-A-F] 1.6 On interpretation of subordinate legislation salutary aim whereof is to achieve social purpose and consequently social justice. When all the said Rules are seen in juxtaposition and in conjunctiqn with each other, intention of rule making authority becomes apparent and is clearly ascertained. The intention of the rule making authorities had always been to give benefit of relaxatio~ in age to women candidates. That, represents the true intention. Otherwise the very purpose of such Rules is defeated. The. rule making authority has manifest its iutention by removing the ambiguity and providing a specific provision even in Rules, 2005 which is by way of abundant caution so that such kinds of disputes 9r situations are eliminated. [Para 30, 31] [337-G; 341-F-G] 1.7 Appellant was entitled to age relaxation as per Rule 4 319 A B c D of Rules, 1997 read with Examination Rules, 2003. She was, ' therefore, eligible to be considered for the post of Dy.S.P. The E direction is issued to the respondents to appoint the appellant as Dy,S.P. w.e.f. the d~te her juniors in the merit list were appointed. Her seniority and pay would be fixed on that basis. [Para 32] [341-H; 342-B]. Y. V. Rangaiah and Others v. J Shreenivasa Rao (1983) 3 SCC 284; B.L. Gupta and Another v.· MC.D. (1998) 9 SCC 223; P. Ganeshll'ar Rao and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others 1988 (Supp) SCC 740:1988 Suppl. SCR 805; Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Keil/a Kumar Palliwal and another (2007) 10 SCC 260: 2007 (5) SCR 1131; State of Plmjab v. Arun Kumar Aggarwal (2007) 10 SCC 402: 2007 (6) SCR·8; Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishna. Lu/la 2015 (11) SCALE 684; Badshah v. Sou. Urmila Badshah God.fr and Anr. (2014) 1 SCC 188:2013 (10) SCR 259 - Referred to. F G H 320 A B c D E F G SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R. Case Law Reference (1983) 3 sec 284 Referred to. Para 19 (1998) 9 sec 223 Referred to. Para 19 1988 Suppl. SCR 805 Referred to. Para 19 2007 (5) SCR 1131 Referred to. Para 20 2007 (6) SCR 8 Referred to. Para 21 2015 (II) SCALE 684 Referred to. Para 28 2013 (10) SCR 259 Referred to. Para 30 Per S11ere J: (S11ppfeme11ti11g): HELD: 1.1 The appellant is entitled to claim age relaxation ·as provided to women candidat~s in Ruic 4 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for appointment of women) Rules, 1997 read with proviso to clause (xiv) of Ruic 5 of the States Services Examination Rules, which has application to the case of the appellant while considering her case for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. !Para 3) )342-E) 1.2 The very object of promulgating the Rules of 1997 and especially Ruic 4 is to encourage women's participation in various State services. Denial of such benefit to a woman candidate while considering her case for the post in State services would make the Rule wholly nugatory. Such can never be the inteution of the Legislature being against the spirit of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. )Para 4) (3.t2-F-G) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 274 of2016 From the Judgment and Order dated I 0.03.20 I 0 of the High Court ofChhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Appeal No. 358 of2009 Ajit Kumar Sinha, T. G. Narayanan Nair, K.N. Madhusoodhanan for the Appellant. Apoorv Kurup, Aniruddha I'. Mayee, A. C. Boxipatro, Dr. Harsh Pathak, Farrukh Rashec, Siddhartha Shukla, Mohit Choubey for the Respondents. 11 The two Judgments of the Court were delivered by RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. A.K. SIKRI, J. I. The issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal pertains to the appointment for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (hereinafter referred to as the 'Dy.S.P.'). Though, the appellant herein had participated in the selection process and she not only qualified at each stage of the examination process. her name was still not included in the list of successfol candidates for the . said post. The reason given was that as per the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2000), upper age limit for appointment to the post of Dy.S.P. was 25 years and she had already crossed the said age limit, and therefore, she was rendered ineligible for the post in question. 2.This decision of the respondents in not appointing the appellant as Dy. S.P. was challenged by the appellant by filing the writ petition in the High Court of Chhattisgarh on the ground that she was entitled to the benefit of age relaxation on account of being Government Servant. It may be noted at this juncture that she was appointed as Excise Sub Inspector, Bilaspur after clearing the CG combined Competitive Examination, 2003 (which is also called State Services Examination, 2003). She, thus, claimed that she was a Government Servant.and on that ground she claimed age relaxation as per Ruic 8 of the Ru lcs, 2000. However, her writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge holding.that she entered the Government job vide appointment order dated 21.04.2006 which was alter the cut-off date as 0 I .0 I .2006 for the post of Dy.S.P. and. therefore, was not entitled to the benefit of age relaxation. The appellant filed the writ appeal before the Division Bench and claimed benefit of age relaxation under Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for appointment of women) Rules. 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1997'). However, even on this ground she has not succeeded as the High Court vidc impugned judgment dated March I 0, 20 I 0 has dismissed the writ appeal. 3. We would like to point out at this stage that number of writ petitions were filed in the I ligh Court which were taken up by the learned single Judge analogously and decided by the common judgment dated November 16, 2009. Whereas some writ petitions including that of the appellant herein was dismissed and some other writ petitions were allowed by the learned single Judge holding that in their cases they were entitled to age relaxation and, therefore, select list should have been prepared on 321 A B c [) E F G II 322 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R. the basis of merit treating those persons to be within age limit. The Government had filed writ appeals challenging outcome of such writ petitions in favour of those candidates. These appeals were also taken up by the Division Bench along with the appeal of the appellant herein. The High Court has allowed those appeals holding that even such persons were not entitled fo the benefit of age relaxation. We make it clear that we shall be eschewing the discussion in respect of those cases which obviously is not necessary. 4. Coming to the case of the appellant herein, seminal facts which need to be recorded for deciding the controversy are recapitulated below: As mentioned above, the appellant herein was appointed as Excise Sub Inspector, Bilaspur vide appointment order dated 24.01.2006 and she joined the said post on 07.02.2006. On 27.09.2004, the State Government sent requisition to Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPSC') for filling up of various vacancies which included vacancies to the post ofDy.S.P. as well. This was followed by fresh requisition dated 22.03.2005. In this requisition, the State Government also mentioned that the vacancies shall be filled up in accordance with Rules, 2000. Acting on this requisition, CPSC issued Advertisement dated 26.08.2005. Relevant to state that after the requisition by the State Government sent on 22.03 .2005 and before the issuance of Advertisement on 26.08.2005, Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 2005') came into force which were published in the Official Gazette on 28.06.2005. The effect of these Rules would be discussed at the relevant stage. S. Appellant herein had applied for the post of Dy.S.P. and appeared in the preliminary examination which she duly qualified. On that basis, the appellant filled the form for appearing In main examination. In this form, she stated that she was entitled to relaxation often years in upper age limit being a woman. Such a relaxation was claimed on the basis of the Rules, 1997 which were brought into force w.e.f. 07.02.1997. The Rule 4 thereof provides for such age relaxation. For our purposes, Rule 2 and Rule 4 are relevant and are reproduced below: "2. Scope and application- Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in any service Rules, these rules shall apply to all persons to public service and posts in connection with the affairs of the State. RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. [A.K.SIKRI, J.] 4. Ai:e Relaxation. - There shall be age relaxation of ten years for women candidates for direct appointment in all posts in the services under the State in addition to the upper age limit prescribed in any service rules or executive instructions." 6. The appellant was allowed to participate in the main examination and she qualified that as well. Accordingly, she was called for interview on 12.04.2007. Final results were declared thereafter. She obtained 54'h position in the merit list. Thereafter, CPSC prepared the list of selected candidates and sent that list to the Government for effecting appointments as per that list. However, name of appellant was not recommended for Dy.S.P. though two persons who were below in merit, namely, Tarkeshwar Patel and Ranu Sahu were recommended. They had obtained 59th and 60th position respectively, in the merit list. Appellant felt aggrieved thereby and made a representation to this effect. However, her representation did not elicit any positive response even when it was followed by a reminder dated 20.05.2007. This apathy of the respondent forced the appellant to approach the High Court in the form of writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Her plea was that she had not been given the benefit of age relaxation even when she was an existing government servant as she was working in the Excise Departmeni of the State of Chhattisgarh and being a Government Servant, she was entitled to age relaxation for eight years. This plea was rejected by the learned single Judge recording that she has joined the government service after the cut-off date and, therefore, she was not a government employee on the relevant date. 7. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order of the learned single Judge by filing the writ appeal. In this writ appeal,.she did not pursue her case for age relaxation upto eight years on the ground that she was a Government S'ervant. Instead she relied upon Rule 4 of Rules 1997 wherein relaxation of ten years is available to women candidates in addition to other relaxation in age. The Division Bench has held that benefit of Rule 4 of Rules 1997 shall not enure to her benefit and the entire discussion in support ofthis conclusion is contained .. in paras 52 and 53 of the impugned judgment which are reproduced hereunder in entirety: "'?2. We are unable to accept this argument. The advertisement clearly mentions that for the post of Dy.S.P., minimum and maximum age limit would be 20 and 25 years clearly spelling out 323 A B c D E F G H 324 A B c SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 1 S.C.R. the terms and conditions for relaxation of age criteria. 53. From bare reading of Rule 8 of the Rules, 2000, it is clear that age relaxation under the Rules, 1997 is not applicable for recruitment on the post ofDy.S.P. From advertisement also, it is evident that no relaxation in age for recruitment for. the post of Dy.S.P. was available to the woman candidates whereas age relaxation under the aforesaid rules have been made applicable in other categories. Since there was no challenge by the appellant to the applicability of the Rules, 2000, she cannot be permitted to assail the impugned judgment on the ground that she was entitled for age relaxation as provided under Rule 4 of the· Rules, 1997." 8. As is clear from the aforesaid reasoning given by the High Court, Rule 8 of Rules, 2000 would prevail upon Rules, 1997 and, therefore, Rules, 1997 are not applicable for recruitment to the post of Dy.S.P. The High Court has also been persuaded by the stipulation contained in the advertisement as per which outer age limit for the post D of Dy.S.P. was 25 years. The whole controversy, therefore, revolves around interplay of Rules, 1997 and Rules 2000 as well as other rules. That was precisely the focus of arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. E F G H 9. We have already reproduced provisions of Rules 2 and 4 of Rules, 1997. As can be discerned from bare reading of Rule 4 thereof, it provides for relaxation of 10 years for women candidates for direct appointment 'in all posts' in the services under the State and this relaxation is 'in addition' to the upper age limit prescribed in any service Rules or adjective instructions. Rule 2 of these rules makes it clear that Rules, 1997 shall apply to all persons to public service and post in connection with the affairs of the State, without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in any service rules. 10. Insofar as Rules, 2000 are concerned, these are the Rules which pertain to recruitment and promotion to various categories of post in State Police Executive (Gazetted) Services. The post of Dy. S.P. is admittedly covered by these Rules and, therefore, eligibility conditions for the aforesaid post and the method ofrecniitment etc. as contained in these Rules which govern the post of Dy. S.P. as well. Since, we are concerned herewith the conditiGns of eligibility for direct recruitment, it is Rule 8 of the said Rules which is relevant. This Rule provides for lower and upper age limit as well. The relevant portion of the provision RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. 325 [A.K.SIKRI, J.] relating to age, as contained in the said Rule, is reproduced below, thereby A omitting the provisions pertaining to other conditions of eligibility with which are are not concerned:- "8. Conditions of eligibility for direct recruitment.- In order to be eligible for competing in the examination a candidate shall have to be satisfy following conditions, namely:- B (I) Age.--( a) He must have attained the age as specified in column 4 of Schedule Ill and not attained the age specified in column 5 of the said schedule, on the first day of January next following the date of commencement of the examination. (b) The upperage limit shall be relaxable upto a maximum of five years if a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class. (c) The upper age limit shall also be relaxable in respect of candidates who are or have been employees of the Madhya Pradesh Government, to the extend and subject to the conditions specified below:- (i) A candidate who is a permanent Government Servant should not be more than 33 years of age. (ii) A candidate holding a posttemporarily and applying for another post should not be qr more than 33 years ofage. This concession shall also l:ie-adinissible to the contingency paid employees, workcharged employees and employees working in the P1'oject Implementation Committee. (iii) A ~andidate who is a retrenched Government Servant shall . be allowed to deduct from his age the period of all temporary service previously rendered by him upto a maximum of 7 years even if it represents more than one spell provided that the resultant age does not exceed the upper age limit by three years. c D E F Expla11atio11.- The term ·retrenched Government Servant' denotes a person who was in Government Servant of this State or · G of any of the constituent units for a continuous period of 11ot less ' than six months and who was discharged because of reduction in the number of employees not more than three years prior to the date of his registration in the Employment Exchange or of application made otherwise for employment in the Government H 326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] I S.C.R. A Service. B c (d)A candidate who is an ex-serviceman shall be allowed to deduct from his age the period of all defense services previously rendered by him provided that the resultant age does not exceed the upper age limit by more than three years. .Explanation.- The terms ·ex-serviceman• denotes a person who belongs to any of the following categories and who was employed under the Government of India for a continuous period of not less than six months and who was retrenched or declared surplus as a result of the recommendation of Economy Unit or due to normal reduction in the number of employees not more than three years from the date of his registration and any employment exchange orof application made other wise for employment in Government Service:- (i) Ex-serviceman released under mustering out concession; D (ii) Ex-serviceman recruited for the second time and discharge on- (a) completion of short term engagement; (b) fulfilling the conditions of enrollment; E (iii) Officers (Military and Civil) discharged on completion of their contract (including Short Service regular commissioned officers); F G H (iv) Officers discharged after working for more than six months continuously against leave vacancies .. (e) General upper age limit shall be relaxable upto five years in respect of widow, destitute or divorced woman candidates. (f) Upper age limit shall also be relaxable upto two years in respect of green card holder candidates under the Family Welfare Programme. (g) The General upper age limit shall be relaxable upto five years in respect of awarded superior caste partners of a couple under the inter caste marriage inceptive Programme of the Tribal, Scheduled Castes, and Backward Classes Welfare Department. (h) The upper age limit shall also be relax able upto five years in respect of candidates holding 'Vikram Award' RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. 327 [A.K.SIKRI, J.] (i) The upper age limit shall be relax able upto a maximum of 33 A years of age in respect of candidates (who are employees) of Madhya Pradesh State Corporation/Boards. UJ The upper age limit shall be relaxed in case of voluntary Home-Guards for the period of servic_e, rendered by them subject to the limit of 8 years, biif in no case their age should exceed 3 B years. Note (I) Candidates who are admitted to the selection under the age concession mentioned in sub-clause(i) and (ii) of clause (c) and clause(i) above shall not be eligible for appointment if after submitting the application they resign from the service either before C or after the selection. They will however continue to be eligible if they are retrenched from the service or post after submitting the application. Note (2) In no other case age limits will be relaxed. Note (3) Department candidates must obtain previous permission D of their appointing authority to appear for the selection." 11. Column (4) of Schedule III prescribes minimum age limit of 20 years and maximum age limit of 25 years for the post of Dy.S.P. (HQ, Training, JNPA, PTC, PTS, Security, Lines etc.). A reading of the aforesaid provision, in its entirety, would suggest that relaxation in age of E different periods is provided to the candidates belonging to the following categories: (i) Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes. (ii) Employees of the Madhya Pradesh Government holding permanent post or temporary post or retrenched Government Servant. (iii) Ex-Serviceman (iv) Widow /destitute or divorced women can di dates (v) Green card holder candidates under the Family Welfare Programme (vi) Awarded superior caste partners of a couple under the intercaste marriage inceptive programme of the Tribal, Scheduled F G Castes and Backward Classes Welfare Department. H 328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 1 S.C.R. A (vii) Those candidates who are holding 'Vikram Award' B c D E F G H (viii) Candidates who are employees of Madhya Pradesh State Corporation/Boards. (ix) Candidates who are voluntary Home-Guards 12. Admittedly, case of the appellant does not fall in any of the aforementioned categories wherein age relaxation is provided. If one has to go by Rule 8 in isolation, having regard to Note (2), age limit in the case of appellant cannot be relaxed. In this context, however, the question arises as to whether Rules, 1997, which contain special provision forappointment of women, would still be applicable having regard to the fact that the appellant is a woman candidate. Whereas, the contention of Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant is that since there are special Rules meant for women candidates in respect of all posts in the State, this special provision is applicable. On the other hand, contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that having regard to Rule 8(1) of Rules, 2000, which provides for provision relating to 'age' specifically for the post in-question, it is this Rule which would determine the eligibility of candidates insofar as prescription of 'age' therein is concerned. 13. We may add here that Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the appellant had also drawn our attention to States Service Examination Rules, dated June 9'". 2003 (Examination Rules, 2003). He submitted that the examination in-question was conducted as per those Rules. These Rules are applicable to the post of Dy.S.P. as well and Rule 5 thereof deals with eligibility conditions. Apart from prescribing nationality, minimum educational qualification etc., It specifically lays down provision relati.ng to age of the candidates. Though, the minimum of age of 21 years and maximum of age 30 years as on first January next following the date of commencement of the competitive examination is stipulated therein, proviso to this provision of age empowers the State Government to vary the lower and upper age limits for any of the services included in these Rules looking to the exigencies of services. This Rule also makes provision for relaxation in the upper age limit in certain cases. What is relevant for us is that for women candidates, a provision is specifically made providing that as per Rules, 1997, 10 years age relaxation would be given to women candidates, as is clear from the said provision which reads as under: RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATT!SGARH AND ORS. [A.K.SlKRl, J.] "(xiv) up to maximum I 0 years: for women candidate: As per Rajpatra (Asadharan) dated 7.2.1997, Published rule C.G. Civil Service (Special provision ofappointment for women) Rule 1997, 10 years age relaxation will be given to women candidate." Taking advantage of this provision, Mr. Sinha argued that since examinations were conducted under the aforesaid Ru !es, in view of the said specific provision, the appellant was entitled to age relaxation, as · per Ru !es, 1997. 14. Another submission of Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha was that in any case it was not permissible for the respondents to make recruitment inquest ion on the basis of Rules, 2000 in view·ofthe fact that in the State ofChhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2005 were promulgated vide Notification dated June 28, 2005 issued by the Governor of the State in exercise of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and, these Rules specifically repealed Rules, 2000. He pointed out that in these Rules specific provision has been made under Rule S(f) for giving relaxation upto I 0 years to women candidates, in terms of Rules, 1997. The said provision is as follows: "8(f) The upper age limit for women candidates shall be relaxable upto I 0 years as per Chhattisgarh Civil Service (special provision for appointment of women) Rules, 1997. this relaxation shall be in addition to the other age relaxation.'' 15. He submitted that in the instant case, advertisement for the post in-question, in which the appel !ant participated, was issued on August 26, 2005, i.e. after the promulgation of Rules, 2005 which became effective from June 28, 2005 and, therefore, it is Rules, 2005 which were applicable and as these Rules contain specific provision for relaxation for women candidates on the applicability of Rules, 1997. .. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents countered the aforesaid ·submissions by arguing that the first requisition in the instant case was sent by the State on September 27, 2004 which was followed by 2'' requisition on March 23, 2005. These requisitions were in respect of post which had fallen vacant at that time and as on the dates of these requisitions, Rules 2000 were applicable. It is for this reason that even in the requisition it was specifically mentioned that post in-question shall be filled up in accordance with Rules, 2000. The learned counsel, 329 A B c D E F G H 330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R. A therefore, argued that since the process was initiated under Rules, 2000, it was clearly saved in Rules, 2005 as is evident from proviso to Rule 27 dealing with repeal and saving. It reads as under: B c D "27. Repeal and Saving: Provided that any order made or action taken under rules so repealed, shall be deemed to have been made or taken under the corresponding provisions of these rules." 17. It was argued that precisely for this reason even in the advertisement, it was mentioned that the post will be filled up as per Rules, 2000. It was further contended that this advertisement was never challenged by the appellant and, therefore, recruitment made under Rules, 2000 in respect of vacancies which were for the period when Rules, 2000 were applicable, could not be faulted with. In this very line of submission, it was further argued that once it is accepted that Rules, 2000 govern the field, admittedly as per these Rules there is no provision for relaxation for women candidates and, therefore, High Court rightly held that the appellant was not entitled to any such age relaxation and was, therefore, suffered from age bar. 18. From the arguments noted above, the questions that fall for consideration and need the answers are the following: E (a) Whether the recruitment to the post of Dy.S.P. was governed by Rules, 2005 or it was rightly done under the Rules, 2000? It may be pointed out at this stage itself that if Rules, 2005 are applicable then the outcome of the case would clearly be in favour of the appellant inasmuch as rules specifically provided for F relaxation upto I 0 years for women candidates. However, if answer to the aforesaid question is that recruitment process was rightly carried under Rules, 2000 then further question would arise for consideration, viz.: (b) Notwithstanding the fact that Rules, 2000 do not contain any G provision for relaxation qua women candidates, whether a relaxation would still be available to women candidates under Rules, 1997? H There are two incidental facets of question no. (b ), which are as follows: RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. 331 [A.K.SlKRl, J.] (i) Whether Rules, 1997 are applicable, which make special A provision for relaxation in upper age limit by 10 years in respect of women candidates? (ii) Whether Examination Rules, 2003 which specifically contain a provision for applicability of Rules, 1997 would be treated as applicable for the examination in-question? B 19. Question No. 1 The High Court held that first and second requisitions to commence recruitment process against the vacant seats to the post of Dy.S.P. was made when Rules, 2000 were in force. Therefore, recruitment was rightly undertaken under Rules, 2000. The admitted facts are thatthe process of selection started before Rules, 2005 were promulgated with the requisitions dated September 27, 2004 and March 26, 2005 sent by the State Government to the CPSE. At that time, Rules, 2000 were in vogue. For this reason, even in the requisition it was mentioned that appointments are to be made under Rules, 2000. Further, it is also an admitted fact that the vacancies inquestion which were to be tilled were for the period prior to 2005. Such vacancies needed to be tilled in as per those Rules, i.e. Rules, 2000. This is patent legal position which can be discerned from Y. V. Rm1gllillli llnd Others v. J. SlireenivttS