JUDGMENT

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

The petitioner was short of 22 years by 43 days, which disabled her from applying under Annexure A1 notification. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has two contentions to urge before this Court; one the judgment of this Court in OP(KAT) No.22 of 2020 and the other that there is inconsistency insofar as the notification permitting any person between 22 and 40 to apply, while the Rule says otherwise.

2. The inconsistency urged by the petitioner's Counsel we do not find, by reason of the clear mandate in the Public Services [Date for Determination of Age for Eligibility for Appointment] Rules, 1977 [for brevity, 'the Rules of 1977']. The age prescribed in any notification issued by the Government for appointment to public services has to be reckoned from the 1st of January of the year in which the notification is published. The statutory Rule does not commend us to find inconsistency in the notification; which if at all existing the Rule prevails.

3. The next ground is based on the judgment in OP(KAT) No.22 of 2020. Therein there was a challenge against the Rule, which was negatived clearly finding that it is a matter of policy. However, considering the