1. - This is an appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition of the appellant wherein his contention was that he could not be taken to be over age for competing for the post of Sub-Inspector. The date of birth of the appellant is 29.10.93. He applied for being considered for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in response to an advertisement issued on 23.1.96. The eligibility qualification as per the Rules and as set out in the advertisement as to age was that the candidate should have completed the age of 20 years and should not have completed age of 23 years as on 1.1.1997. The appellant had completed the age of 23 years in October, 1996 and was, therefore, not eligible to compete for the post. Despite being ineligible, the appellant applied in response to the advertisement before 23.3.96 which was the last date for submission of the application forms. His application form was entertained obivously, because in Clause 8 of the advertisement, it was stated that all the candidates whose applications are received within time along with required examination fees and photographs shall be allowed tentative admission in the examination. Eligibility of only such candidates will be verified who will clear the written and physical fitness test. It was also specifically stated in Clause 8 that the applicants should themselves verify and determine whether they are eligible in accordance with the advertisement/rules for competing for the post. It was further stated in Clause 8 of the advertisement that if the candidates are found ineligible, their candidature will be rejected even if the result was declared or they are selected for the post. Obviously, such a provision was made because of large number of candidates applying in response to the advertisement and it was not possible to scrutinise the application forms in a reasonable time. The appellant appeared in the examination held in the month of June, 1996, result of the examination was declared in September, 1996 and the successful candidates were called for interview in the month of April, 1997. It appears that the appellant had cleared the examination and therefore, his eligibility was verified by the respondents. On 15.2.97, the R.P.S.C. wrote to the appellant that his candidature has been rejected because he was over age.

2. In the meanwhile, on 13.11.96, the State Government issued a notification amending the relevant Service Rules and provided that where upper age limit to post/posts is prescribed as 33 years or less in the Rules or Schedule, as the case may be, it shall be relaxed by 2 years in the case of candidates belonging to the O.B.C. The contention of the appellant is that he is a member of one of the Other Backward Classes and, therefore, was entitled to the relaxation of age limit by two years and was, therefore, eligible to take the examination. When this contention was not accepted by the respondents, the appellant filed the writ petition in this Court contending that he was eligible to complete for the post of Sub-Inspector he was entitled to benefit of the notification dated 13.11.96. In the writ petition, the appellant contended that as the age had to be determined as on 1.1.97, the notification dated 13.11.96 would apply to his case because the Rules were amended prior to 1.1.97. He also contended, alternatively, that fixing the cut-off date for determination of age as 1.1.97 was arbitrary and had no nexus with the object of selection. According to the appellant, the eligibility as to age also should be tested by either date of the advertisement or the last date for submission of the application forms.

3. The learned Single Judge did not accept the contentions and dismissed the writ petition. Against the dismissal of the writ petition, this appeal has been filed.

4. In the appeal also, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was eligible and was not over age because the no