1. In all these writ applications common questions of law and facts arise and as such, they were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Facts lie in the narrow compass.

3. The Bihar Public Service Commission published advertisement bearing advertisement no. 3/2008 inviting applications from the candidates for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). According to that advertisement upper age limit for appointment in terms of the advertisement as on 1.8.2008 is 35 years for general category and 40 years for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Petitioners intend to offer their candidature for appointment but having crossed the upper age limit they are not eligible to be considered.

4. Accordingly their prayer is for a direction to the respondents to shift back the cut-off date ranging from 1.8.2001 to 1.8.2006 for the purpose of determination of age.

5. It is not in dispute that last advertisement for appointment was made in the year 2005 (Advertisement No. 43 of 2005) in which the cut-off date originally advertised was 1.8.2005 but shifted back to 1.8.2000. It is further not in dispute that the State Government by its resolution dated 22.6.2006 had enhanced the upper age limit for appointment in Government Services, same is as follows:

(i) Unreserved class (men)37 years

(ii) Backward class/Extremely backward class (men and women)40 years

(iii) Unreserved class (women) 40 years

(iv) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (men and women) 42 years

6. It is further an admitted position that the Bihar Public Service Commission had made common advertisement for 48th to 52nd Joint Competitive Examination (Advertisement No. 4 of 2007) inviting applications for various posts in different services including Bihar Administrative Service (Deputy Collector) and Bihar Police Service (Deputy Superintendent of Police) in which cut off date for determination of age limit has been fixed as follows:

48th Joint Competitive Examination1 .8.2002 49th Joint Competitive Examination1 .8.2003 50th Joint Competitive Examination1 .8.2004 51st Joint Competitive Examination1 .8.2005 52nd Joint Competitive Examination1 .8.2006.

7. We have heard Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary Senior Advocate, Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh and Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey for the petitioners. State is represented by Mr. Advocate General, whereas Mr. Tara Kant Jha, Senior Advocate appears on behalf of the High Court.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contend that cut-off date 1.8.2008 to determine the upper age limit is arbitrary. It is pointed out that the advertisement in question for appointment has been issued after three years and in the meantime many of the candidates have become over age and they shali be deprived of their right to offer their candidatures for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). In support of the submission reliance has been placed on an observation of learned Single Judge in the case cf Bishun Dutta Jha & Prs. vs. The B.P.S.C. & Others, 1999(2) PLJR 215 and our attention has been drawn to the following passage:

"XX XX XX XX

The other grievance of the petitioners is that in terms of rules every year vacancy has to be notified and the steps have to be taken by the Commission for appointment. However due to laches on the part of the respondents examination is not being conducted for a long period as a result of which many candidates (Advocates) who were eligible to apply during that period, have now become overage. This grievance of the petitioner appears to be genuine as the rules provided that the vacancy has to be notified each and every year and the Commission has to take steps for holding the competitive examination and if the same is not done then the candidates who became illegible (sic-eligible?) during that period cannot be allowed to suffer. As such by way of the interim order a direction is issued to the respondents to allow the candidates also who