ORDER :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav,, learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC.

2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 05.12.2018 contained in Annexure-6 whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected.

4. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission published advertisement inviting applications for appointment on the post of Graduate Trained Teacher for various Districts within Jharkhand under Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Exam, 2016. The vacancy position was subject and District wise as per the advertisement. As per the advertisement, the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in Geography subject, the requirement was graduate with minimum 45% marks in concerned subject for which appointment was to be made with B.Ed. from recognized institution or similar qualification from Rashtriya Adhyapak Shiksha Parishad. Pursuant to that, the petitioner has applied for appointment. The cut-off date of age was 01.01.2016 on which date minimum age required was 21 years and maximum age for Extremely Backward Class (List-I) and Backward Class (List-2) was 42 years. The petitioner appeared and was declared successful in the counselling. The documents of the petitioner was examined and while calculating the age of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner has already crossed 42 years of age and reason was communicated to the petitioner that he has already entered into 43rd years of age. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition.

5. Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has completed 41 years 11 months and 30 days of age on 31.12.2015 and on 01.01.2016, the petitioner was 42nd years of age. He submits that date of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.1974 and in the light of age calculator on the website of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, the petitioner was found 42 years on 01.01.2016. On this ground he submits that the case of the petitioner has been arbitrarily rejected.

6. Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JSSC submits that the age of the petitioner was calculated in terms of well settled procedure and precedent. He submits that the petitioner has already completed 42 years of age on 31.12.2015 and he has entered in 43rd years of age on 01.01.2016. To substantiate his argument, he draws this Court towards Rule 73 of Jharkhand Service Code and also pointed out that in Rule 5(3) of IAS (Appointment By Promotion), Regulations, 1955, calculation of age has been provided. He submits that in view of this Rule also, the case of the petitioner is not fit to be considered, however, JSSC after applying this, has rightly calculated the age. He submits that so far the age calculator on the website of JSSC is concerned that was erroneous and that is why was not required to be relied. He submits that that was not part of the advertisement that is why the said age calculator has been removed from the website of JSSC. He relied in the case of Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia Versus Dhiraj Prasad Sahu @ Dhiraj Sahu & Others reported in 2020 (1) JBCJ (HC). Para 84, 85 and 86 of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-

84. The Supreme Court of India, while dilating on the period of 45 days as the limitation for filing an election petition from the date of election sought to be challenged, had held in Raj Kumar Yadav Vs. Samir Kumar Mahaseth and others reported in (2005) 3 SCC 601 that the 45th day w