The respondent did number companyplete 21 years as on July 1, 1983.
The respondent was selected as Deputy Registrar of Co operative Societies.
Madhava Reddy, D.R.K. Reddy, Vimal Dave, B. Rajeshwar Rao and Mudu Vijai for the Respondents.
In 1985, final examination was companyducted.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.
The post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was one of the posts for which applications were invited.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This is an appeal by the A.P. Public Service Commission against the decision of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal dated September 22, 1989.
He was short by 19 days and his case, therefore, was number companysidered for ap pointment to post of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
In 1984, the Public Service Commission companyducted prelim inary examination for the eligible candidates.
On 27 March 1987, the list of selected candidates was prepared for appointment to differ ent categories of posts.
3843 of 1989.
The respond ent applied to that post as well as to other posts.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The facts are number in dispute and may be stated as fol lows The Public Service Commission issued an Advertisement Notification No.
He was, however, companysidered to other posts since it was a companybined selection for Grade I Services.
The minimum age prescribed for selection to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was 21 years as on July 1, 1983, as against 18 years for other posts.
The appeal raises a question as to the scope of Rule 5 of the A.P. Police Service Rules, 1966.
The Notification was published in the Gazette dated August 25, 1983.
1147 of 1990.
V.S.N. Chari, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao and Ms. Manjula Gupta for the Appellants.
In 1986, the candidates were called for interview.
1989 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad in Representation Peti tion No.
