The man who brought the case had been qualified to train as an air traffic controller.
This I think is the sentence which is causing confusion in the BBC posting and especially to those not previously aware of the case.
My understanding is that the subject of this ruling may have been qualified educationally to train as an air traffic controller but that is all. He did not meet the age requirement as it then stood nor, as far as I know, did he have any previous experience.
For the intransigents above lets try an analogy they might just understand.
I am 53. I am well past my prime in many respects. I work well (I beleive) using my experience but am aware (and am constantly reminded) of my own limitations.
Supposing under the logic used by posters above I decided I now wanted to be a fast jet (or indeed any other kind of) pilot in the RAF. They too, quite properly, have an age limitation - and who in their right mind would accept me?