S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. In both the writ petitions, as common questions of law involved, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioner Cosmas Bhengra of Writ Petition (S) No. 474 of 2005 has challenged the order contained in Memo No. 4808 dated 29th December, 2004, whereby and where under, he has been removed from service as a measure of punishment as envisaged under Rule 49 read with Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Services Rules). The order of removal has been given effect from retrospective date i.e. 26th December, 2003 and issued under the signature of S.P., East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.

3. The main plea taken by the respondents to remove the petitioner from service is that the petitioner was under age by three days as per terms of advertisement.

4. So far as petitioner Reena Kumari of Writ Petition (S) No. 532 of 2005 is concerned, she has challenged the order, contained in Memo No. 4810 dated 29th December, 2004, whereby and where under she has been removed from service as a measure of punishment as envisaged under Rule 49 read with Rule 55 of the Civil Services Rules. The order of removal has been given effect from retrospective date i.e. 26th December, 2003 and issued under the signature of S.P., Bast Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.

5. The main ground taken by the respondents is that though she was shown to have failed in the written test, but most probably due to over-writing and showing her to have passed, she was recommended by the Selection Committee and appointed to the post of Constable,

6. In both the cases, the main plea taken by the petitioners is that they have been removed from service as a measure of punishment without initiation, of a departmental proceeding, though in the order of removal, the respondent S.P., East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur has referred Rules 49 and 55 of the Civil Services Rules.

7. The case of the petitioners is that they applied for appointment to the post of Constable in pursuance of advertisement published by respondents in Newspapers on 15th August, 2003 (Advertisement No. 1/03), 15th September, 2003 was the last date for submission of applications. It was mentioned that the candidates should be in the age-group of 19 to 35 years (for general category), 19 to 40 (for S.T./S.C. categories) 19 to 37 for Backward/Extreme Backward Categories), as on 1st of January 2003.

8. Both the petitioners applied in pursuance of said advertisement. The petitioner Cosmas Bhengra of Writ Petition (S) No. 474/05 was more than 19 years of age at the time of application (applied in August, 2003), but was three days less than 19 years as on 1st January, 2003, his date of birth being 4th January, 1948. The petitioners were provided with Admit Cards, appeared in the physical and written test along with others and completed all the formalities. They having been selected by the Selection Board, were recommended for appointment and were appointed. Cosmas Behngra was appointed vide letter dated 6th February, 2004 issued by the S.P., Jamshedpur. By another letter dated 6th February, 2004, the petitioner Reena Kumari was appointed by S.P., Jamshedpur. Both of them were sent for Police Training and came out successful. After return from the training, petitioner Cosmas Bhengra received a Memo No. 3831, dated 26th November, 2004 whereby he was asked as to why he be not dismissed from service. It was informed that as per advertisement, a candidate should have been in between 19-40 years of age as on 1st January, 2003 and when he applied, he was found to be less than 19 years of age. It was alleged that the petitioner Cosmas Bhengra had given wrong information which shows his doubtful conduct and for that whey he be not dismissed being ineligible for appointment. Petitioner Cosmas Bhengra thereafter filed show cause reply and submitted that he was about 19 years of age i.e. three days less than 19 ye