Honble R.K. Agrawal, J.—In respect of advertisement dated 7/13-10-2006 issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), for appearing in the U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examinations, 2006 a Division Bench of this Court while hearing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69148 of 2006, noticed that there are two contradictory judgment of co-ordinate Benches of the same strength, i.e. two Division Benches of this Court, namely Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59653 of 2006, J.P. Tiwari & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., and other connected petitions, decided on 2-11-2006, on the one hand, and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69189 of 2006, Sanjay Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. & Ors., decided on 15-12-2006, on the other hand, directed the matter to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench. Vide order dated 9-1-2007, passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, the present Full Bench has been constituted to resolve the controversy.

2. On 26-2-2007 when the matter came up before the Full Bench, it was informed that an application seeking review of the judgment and order dated 16-12-2006 passed by this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Pathak (supra) has been filed. Some more writ petitions challenging the validity of the advertisement dated 7/13-10-2006 have also been filed. This Court, vide order dated 26-2-2007 considered it appropriate that all the matters be heard by the Full Bench. The relevant portion of the order dated 26-2-2007 passed by this Court is reproduced below :

“Vide order dated 22-12-2006 a Division Bench consisting of the Hon’ble B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, JJ., had noticed that there is a conflict of opinion in the two judgments of this Court, namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59653 of 2006, Jai Prakash Tiwari & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., and other connected petitions, decided on 2-11-2006 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65189 of 2006, Sanjay Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. & Ors., decided on 15-12-2006, and the matter has been referred to a larger Bench to resolve the conflict in the aforesaid two judgments.

We have been informed that a review application has been filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65189 of 2006, Sanjay Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P., decided on 15-12-2006, which is pending.

As this Full Bench has been constituted to resolve the conflict in the two decisions, referred to above, and to decide which decision lays down the correct law, it would be appropriate, in order to avoid conflicting judgment of this Court, that as the matter is being considered by the Full Bench under the orders dated 9-1-2007 passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, the review application and any other petition relating to the same advertisement pending in this Court, be also considered by the Full Bench.

Let the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice for passing the necessary orders.”

3. Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice, vide order dated 26-2-2007, directed to place the review application filed in the case of Sanjay Kumar Pathak (supra) and other connected writ petitions, before the Full Bench. This is how the application seeking review of the judgment and order dated 15-12-2006 passed in Sanjay Kumar Pathak (supra) and all other writ petitions have come up before this Court.

Law laid down in J.P. Tiwari’s case :

4. In the case of J.P. Tiwari (supra), this Court while interpreting the provisions of the U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), has held as follows :

(i) The phrase “process of recruitment is initiated by the appointing authority”, occurring in Rule 4(m), means the date on which the requisition is sent by the Governor to the Commission under Rule 15. The requisition was sent in August, 2006;

(ii) The relevant date for determining the upper age limit, in ca