The petitioners who are applicants to the post of Lecturer in various subjects in the Collegiate Education Department, are aggrieved by the fixation of the date 1.1.2007 in Ext.P1 notification for calculation of age for enabling the candidates to submit application to the post in question. Accordingly, they are seeking for a direction to accept the applications by calculating their age with reference to 1.1.2008. The circumstances leading to the filing of the writ petition are the following:

2. All the petitioners are Post Graduates having passed M.A. (Economics) Degree Examination in May, 2007. Ext.P1 notification is dated 12.12.2007. As per Ext.P1, the candidates should have completed 22 years of age and should not exceed 35 years of age on 1.1.2007. All the petitioners are having U.G.C. and N.E.T. qualifications also. Exts.P2 to P17 are produced in support of the acquisition of qualifications by the petitioners. The petitioners undertook the examination for M.A. Degree in May, 2007. The last date prescribed for submission of application was 16.1.2008. It is therefore contended that the prescription of cut off date for calculation of age as 1.1.2007 is arbitrary. It is further pointed out that among them, petitioners 1, 3 and 4 are First, Second and Third Rank holders respectively in M.A. Economics Degree Examination and if opportunity is denied by way of a notification like Ext.P1, the petitioners who are having brilliant academic background, will not get due consideration.

3. On behalf of the Public Service Commission, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed supporting the notification. It is pointed out that the same is in tune with the Special Rules in force. It is also in tune with the Public Services (Date for determination of age for eligibility for appointment) Rules, 1977.

4. As per the interim order, this Court directed the respondents to accept the applications of the petitioners provisionally subject to the result of the writ petition. The petitioners have appeared for the written test also. 5. The crucial question, therefore, is whether the notification is in any way arbitrary or illegal. The Special Rules, viz. Special Rules for Kerala Collegiate Education Service, 1994, contains a provision regarding age. Rule 4 of the said Rules is extracted below:

"4. Qualification regarding age.--No person shall be eligible for appointment by direct recruitment to any of the posts if he has not completed 22 years of age or is above 35 years of age on the first day of January of the year in which the applications for appointment are invited. Usual relaxation in upper age limit shall be allowed to candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes."

The other rule relevant is Rule 2 of Public Services (Date for determination of age for eligibility for appointment) Rules, 1977, which provides as follows:

"2. Date for determination of age for eligibility for appointment to Public Services.-With effect on and from the commencement of these rules, the Special Rules for the various State Services and Subordinate Services, in force at such commencement, shall stand modified as if the date specified in those Special Rules for determination of the age for eligibility for appointment to posts included in the various services had been modified as the 1st January of the year in which applications for appointment to such posts are invited.

Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to any appointment to be made in pursuance of any notification inviting applications, published before the commencement of these rules."

6. Therefore, going by these two rules, the age has to be reckoned as the 1st January of the year in which application is invited. Herein, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following argument: The act of inviting the application will be completed only on the last day fixed for receipt of the application. Therefore, till then it is open for every one of the candi