(1) AT the material time the respondent was holding the post of Hatchery Officer in the Central Poultry Breeding Farms under the Ministry of Agriculture.

(2) ON 15-2-1990 the Union Public Service Commission advertised for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Director in the Central Poultry Breeding Farms under the Ministry of Agriculture. Under the advertisement the prescribed age for the candidates was not exceeding 35 years as on 31-5-1990, relaxing up to 5 years for government servants. This condition relating to age of the candidates was in accordance with the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution on 29-3-1985 regulating the method of recruitment to the post of Director and Assistant Director (Group A posts in the Central Poultry Breeding Farms, under the Ministry of Agriculture). The said Rules of 1985, inter alia, prescribe the age limit for direct recruits to the post of Assistant Director. The Rules state: under column 6 which pertains to age limits for direct recruits, "not exceeding 35 years (relaxable for government servants up to 5 years in accordance with the instructions and orders issued by the Central Government)".

(3) THE respondent was overage even after taking into consideration the relaxation of 5 years granted under the Rules. Therefore, he was not called for an interview. Thereupon, the respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi claiming that the earlier recruitment rules prescribed under the notification of 16-11-1976 were still in force, since they were not expressly superseded by the notification prescribing new rules dated 29-3-1985. Under the earlier rules, while the age of recruitment for the post of Assistant Director by direct recruitment was 35 years, it was relaxable in the case of government servants. The rules did not prescribe any limit up to which such relaxation could be granted. The Tribunal, by the impugned order has accepted the plea of the respondent, holding that the maximum period prescribed for relaxation, namely, 5 years in the Rules of 1985 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(4) DURING the pendency of his application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and by virtue of interim orders passed therein the respondent was called for an interview for the post of Assistant Director on 8-2-1991 by the Union Public Service Commission. The letter calling the respondent for interview clearly states as follows:

"THIS call is being issued in compliance with the direction of the Honble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench, New Delhi, dated 4-2-1991, and is without prejudice to the Commissions stand with respect to your candidature for the post in question."

(5) THEREAFTER the respondent was selected by the Union Public Service Commission. During the pendency of the present appeal the respondent, on 7-3-1994 had been appointed as Assistant Director as a direct recruit with effect from 24-1-1994 until further orders. The appointment notification further states:

"THIS appointment is provisional and subject to the outcome of SLP (C) No; 3446 of 1993 pending in the Supreme Court of India."

(6) THE only question that we are required to consider is whether the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and dated 29-3-1985 whereby age relaxation up to 5 years is permitted in the case of government servants can be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable. Prescribing of any age limit for a given post, as also deciding the extent to which any relaxation can be given if an age limit is prescribed, are essentially matters of policy. It is, therefore, open to the Government while framing rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to prescribe such age limits or to prescribe the extent to which any relaxation can be given. Prescription of such limit or the extent of relaxation to be given, cannot be