Chandan Upadhyay v. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another

1. Heard Mr. Ajay Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging clause 2.8 (i) for the advertisement dated 12th August 2025 so far as it relates to computation of age limit on second July. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to permit petitioner to apply for the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) in pursuance of advertisement dated 12th August 2025.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention to the aforesaid advertisement dated 12th August 2025, particularly paragraph 2.8 (i) thereof to indicate that so far as restriction of age is concerned, the applicant was required to have completed 21 years of age as on 1st July 2025. Explanation indicated that an applicant for being considered should not have been born prior to 2nd July 1997.

4. He has thereafter drawn attention to paragraph 2.8 (ii) of the advertisement to indicate that while wordings with regard to age restriction are the same, the explanation takes a deviation to the effect that applicants who had been born prior to Ist July 1997 were excluded. It is therefore submitted that once the main portion of the provision was identical in nature, the explanation could not have been different and is apparently a result of typographical mistake.

5. Learned State counsel has been provided written instructions dated 10th September 2025, which are taken on record. A perusal of same however 2 WRIA No. 10556 of 2025 indicates that there is no discussion or explanation with regard to the aforesaid discrepancy and reasons for such a discrepancy.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record as well as written instructions, it is evident that the initial portion of paragraph 2.8 (i) and (ii) pertaining to age restrictions are identical and are as follows: "2.8 /I-?=_??+- +/K I ?)//?=?;/K (/-? 9 ?K?/-) O )I9?9 --} O ?; /9 =/ 9I ? :- (i) + ?)9I )??9 +I?;9 (+Iy?//?9;?) --? /?9;? -??;/) 9O-I /?9;? + ?)9I )?o+Io (+I9I) O +/K 9O-I m/-} )O ?/)? 01-07-2025 K 21 =?} I /I ?o- 9 ;I 9K 9 28 =?} I /I ?o- ) I 9K -?}-M m/-} ? m/ 02-07-1997 9O +K=} --? 01-07-2004 O -?/ ? )9K 9K)? ??9m (ii) o;?K) /?o)9 +I9I (+Iy?) / + ?)9I 9?}} +I?;9 (+Iy?) --? o;?K) /?o)9 / + ?)9I , ?=?O? 9I9? -; (+Iy?) O +/K 9O-I m/-} )O ?/)? 01-07-2025 K 21 =?} I /I ?o- 9 ;I 9K 9 28 =?} 9O ?/ I /I +K+} ) I 9K -?}-M m/-} ? m/ 01-07-1997 9O +K=} --? 01-07-2004 O -?/ ? )9K 9K)? ??9m +9m-I /9 ? )I9K?- ??-/K, )I9K?- ) ??-/K 9 9I m/ O?+/K 9O 9o-?m/- m/?-/K I /?? /O _-9 /I 9I/? -)O =?} ?/ 9KI, ? -)I ?9?}/K I ?/9K)? O 9// ?/?)// /O 9 ;?K 99 ?9I /O?K /O ?=?)?/ I ?/O m +9m-I /9 ? 9 --} /O /I /O K  ?/ ?)O 9O-I m9 /O? ??9) O ??9)?/O? 9 _/? 972187/6 / /O /?} 9 --} 9O-I ?)/?}?9- /I 9I/? /O 9-I 72187/6-1001(008)/24/2023. ?/)? -26.05.20 O 9-I = O m/?-/K O ?; +=?/ }={+  -?9 O ?; 03 =?} I K  /I ?/OIm

7. A perusal of aforesaid clause thus makes it evident that while the age restriction indicated in the main clause is identical, the date indicated for exclusion in the explanation clause differs. No reason whatsoever has been indicated either in the advertisement or in the written instructions for such deviation. Although it appears that the deviation is on account of some typographical mistake, the opposite parties are not forthcoming with regard to any corrigendum having been issued and on the contrary submit that the deviation is correct.

8. In the considered opinion of this court, the explanation clause to any provision is to be read in consonance with the initial clause of a provision which will prevail over any deviation in the explanation clause. In case of any deviation in the initial clause, it is the object sought to be achieved which is required to be considered.

9. In the present case, the opposite parties have not been able to indicate any rational nexus between the original clause and objects sought to be achieved by deviation in explanation paragraph 2.8 (ii) of the clause. The written instructions have also appended the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and 3 WRIA No. 10556 of 2025 Inspector (Civil Police) Service (Second Amendment) Rules 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 2016) with Rule 10 providing as follows:- "Age-10. A candidate for direct recruitment must have attained the age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of more than 28 years on the first day of July of a calendar year in which vacancies for direct recruitment are advertised: Provided........."

10. The rule was subsequently amended in following terms:- "Age-10. A candidate for direct recruitment must have attained the age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of 28 years on the first day of July of a calendar year in which vacancies for direct recruitment are advertised: Provided..............."

11. It is thus evident from a perusal of the service rules as well as Rule 10 of the Rules of 2016 clearly provide that a candidate for direct recruitment must have attained the age of 21 years as on the first day of July of calendar year. In such circumstances, it is first of July of the recruitment year which would be relevant. The written instructions have also brought on record the U.P. Provincial Arms Constabulary Subordinate Service Officers Service Rules of 2015 in which also Rule 10 is identical to Rule 10 of the Rules of 2016.

12. In view of aforesaid rules, it is thus evident that for a candidate to be eligible in terms of age to apply in terms of the advertisement for the said posts, he should have attained the age of 21 years as on Ist July 2025. Any discrepancy in the explanation clause of the advertisement would therefore be irrelevant. In case petitioner has completed the age of 21 years as on Ist July 2025, he would naturally be eligible for applying on the aforesaid posts in terms of paragraph 2.8 (i) & (ii) of the advertisement. In case petitioner has attained the age of 21 years as on Ist July 2025, the opposite parties are directed to consider his candidature for the aforesaid two posts in terms of paragraph 2.8 (i) & (ii) of the advertisement dated 12th August, 2025.

13. In terms of the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed to the said extent. November 10, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Mr. Ajay Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging clause 2.8 (i) for the advertisement dated 12th August 2025 so far as it relates to computation of age limit on second July. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to permit petitioner to apply for the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) in pursuance of advertisement dated 12th August 2025.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention to the aforesaid advertisement dated 12th August 2025, particularly paragraph 2.8 (i) thereof to indicate that so far as restriction of age is concerned, the applicant was required to have completed 21 years of age as on 1st July 2025. Explanation indicated that an applicant for being considered should not have been born prior to 2nd July 1997.

4. He has thereafter drawn attention to paragraph 2.8 (ii) of the advertisement to indicate that while wordings with regard to age restriction are the same, the explanation takes a deviation to the effect that applicants who had been born prior to Ist July 1997 were excluded. It is therefore submitted that once the main portion of the provision was identical in nature, the explanation could not have been different and is apparently a result of typographical mistake.

5. Learned State counsel has been provided written instructions dated 10th September 2025, which are taken on record. A perusal of same however 2 WRIA No. 10556 of 2025 indicates that there is no discussion or explanation with regard to the aforesaid discrepancy and reasons for such a discrepancy.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record as well as written instructions, it is evident that the initial portion of paragraph 2.8 (i) and (ii) pertaining to age restrictions are identical and are as follows: "2.8 /I-?=_??+- +/K I ?)//?=?;/K (/-? 9 ?K?/-) O )I9?9 --} O ?; /9 =/ 9I ? :- (i) + ?)9I )??9 +I?;9 (+Iy?//?9;?) --? /?9;? -??;/) 9O-I /?9;? + ?)9I )?o+Io (+I9I) O +/K 9O-I m/-} )O ?/)? 01-07-2025 K 21 =?} I /I ?o- 9 ;I 9K 9 28 =?} I /I ?o- ) I 9K -?}-M m/-} ? m/ 02-07-1997 9O +K=} --? 01-07-2004 O -?/ ? )9K 9K)? ??9m (ii) o;?K) /?o)9 +I9I (+Iy?) / + ?)9I 9?}} +I?;9 (+Iy?) --? o;?K) /?o)9 / + ?)9I , ?=?O? 9I9? -; (+Iy?) O +/K 9O-I m/-} )O ?/)? 01-07-2025 K 21 =?} I /I ?o- 9 ;I 9K 9 28 =?} 9O ?/ I /I +K+} ) I 9K -?}-M m/-} ? m/ 01-07-1997 9O +K=} --? 01-07-2004 O -?/ ? )9K 9K)? ??9m +9m-I /9 ? )I9K?- ??-/K, )I9K?- ) ??-/K 9 9I m/ O?+/K 9O 9o-?m/- m/?-/K I /?? /O _-9 /I 9I/? -)O =?} ?/ 9KI, ? -)I ?9?}/K I ?/9K)? O 9// ?/?)// /O 9 ;?K 99 ?9I /O?K /O ?=?)?/ I ?/O m +9m-I /9 ? 9 --} /O /I /O K  ?/ ?)O 9O-I m9 /O? ??9) O ??9)?/O? 9 _/? 972187/6 / /O /?} 9 --} 9O-I ?)/?}?9- /I 9I/? /O 9-I 72187/6-1001(008)/24/2023. ?/)? -26.05.20 O 9-I = O m/?-/K O ?; +=?/ }={+  -?9 O ?; 03 =?} I K  /I ?/OIm

7. A perusal of aforesaid clause thus makes it evident that while the age restriction indicated in the main clause is identical, the date indicated for exclusion in the explanation clause differs. No reason whatsoever has been indicated either in the advertisement or in the written instructions for such deviation. Although it appears that the deviation is on account of some typographical mistake, the opposite parties are not forthcoming with regard to any corrigendum having been issued and on the contrary submit that the deviation is correct.

8. In the considered opinion of this court, the explanation clause to any provision is to be read in consonance with the initial clause of a provision which will prevail over any deviation in the explanation clause. In case of any deviation in the initial clause, it is the object sought to be achieved which is required to be considered.

9. In the present case, the opposite parties have not been able to indicate any rational nexus between the original clause and objects sought to be achieved by deviation in explanation paragraph 2.8 (ii) of the clause. The written instructions have also appended the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and 3 WRIA No. 10556 of 2025 Inspector (Civil Police) Service (Second Amendment) Rules 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 2016) with Rule 10 providing as follows:- "Age-10. A candidate for direct recruitment must have attained the age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of more than 28 years on the first day of July of a calendar year in which vacancies for direct recruitment are advertised: Provided........."

10. The rule was subsequently amended in following terms:- "Age-10. A candidate for direct recruitment must have attained the age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of 28 years on the first day of July of a calendar year in which vacancies for direct recruitment are advertised: Provided..............."

11. It is thus evident from a perusal of the service rules as well as Rule 10 of the Rules of 2016 clearly provide that a candidate for direct recruitment must have attained the age of 21 years as on the first day of July of calendar year. In such circumstances, it is first of July of the recruitment year which would be relevant. The written instructions have also brought on record the U.P. Provincial Arms Constabulary Subordinate Service Officers Service Rules of 2015 in which also Rule 10 is identical to Rule 10 of the Rules of 2016.

12. In view of aforesaid rules, it is thus evident that for a candidate to be eligible in terms of age to apply in terms of the advertisement for the said posts, he should have attained the age of 21 years as on Ist July 2025. Any discrepancy in the explanation clause of the advertisement would therefore be irrelevant. In case petitioner has completed the age of 21 years as on Ist July 2025, he would naturally be eligible for applying on the aforesaid posts in terms of paragraph 2.8 (i) & (ii) of the advertisement. In case petitioner has attained the age of 21 years as on Ist July 2025, the opposite parties are directed to consider his candidature for the aforesaid two posts in terms of paragraph 2.8 (i) & (ii) of the advertisement dated 12th August, 2025.

13. In terms of the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed to the said extent. November 10, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench