S. B. Sanyal, J.

1. Was the petitioner beyond thirty years of age on 1st august, 1985, he having born on 1-8-1955, so as to exclude him from being considered for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor on the basis of competitive examination held in the year 1985 conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission is the moot question in this writ petition.

2. Facts.-on the 27th March, 1985, Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the commission) brought out an advertisement for appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor. Apart from the educational qualification the age requirement in clause 3 of the advertisement was, general candidate should be thirty years of age on 1st August, 1965 and thirty-five years for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes. It was also the requirement of the advertisement that the candidate should be graduate in law and have to face written examination of which four will be compulsory subjects and two optional subjects (Annexure-1 ). In response to the said Notification the petitioner filled up the application form enclosing a copy of his Matriculation certificate showing his date of birth as 1-8-1985. The petitioner was issued an Admit Card after scrutiny of the required papers and he was assigned Roll No.01585. The petitioner appeared in the examination in all the subjects. After completion of the written test, vide letter dated 27-5-1987 the petitioner was directed by the Commission to appear at the Interview and the viva-voce test on 17-6-1987 at 8.00 a. m. (Annexure-3 ). The petitioner, thereafter, was supplied with mark sheet of his written examination but he was not allotted any marks for the viva-voce test. In the remarks column it was noted over-aged. The aforesaid communication is under the signature of the Under secretary of the Commission dated 17-7-1987 (Annexure-4) The petitioner filed his representation to the Chairman of the Commission wherein he had contended that he was exactly 30 years of age on 1-8-1985, therefore he was not over-aged as remarked by the Commission at the time of interview. This was followed by large number of representations; the last one of which is dated 25-11-1987 (Annexure-5 ).

3. The petitioner has moved this court for issuance of an appropriate writ directing publication of his result of viva-voce test, on the basis of the marks obtained in written examination and viva-voce, fix his actual position among the successful candidates, for consideration for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor on the basis of 1985 competitive examination. In short, the petitioner prays for quashing of the remark "over aged" entered in the communication by the Under secretary of the Commission on 17-7-1987 (Annexure-4 ). The petitioner has also enclosed his Matriculation certificate showing his date of birth as 1-8-1955 (Annexure-6 ). No counter-affidavit has been filed either by the State of Bihar or by respondent No.2, the Commission.

4. Dr. jha, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that the commission has gone hey-wire in disqualifying the petitioner as being over-aged on 1-8-1985. The petitioner, according to the learned counsel, was just 30 years on 1-8-1985 completely conforming age eligibility of a general candidate for participation in the competitive examination and consideration for the post he applied for. The respondent-commission has erroneously adjudged him as more than 30 years on 1-8-1985. Thus, denying him an opportunity for consideration and in so doing the petitioners fundamental right, as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of (he Constitution, has been abridged. That the petitioner was issued an admit Card to participate in the competitive examination on Commission being fully satisfied after perusal of the application form and all other relevant documents enclosed therewith including the Matriculation certificate. The petitioner was never stopped in appearing in all the six subjects by the Commission. Afte