The matter of age relaxation is within the domain of the legislature or the statutory authorities, who are vested with the power to frame the terms and conditions of the service.

1. - Aggrieved of her ineligibility with reference to maximum age limit prescribed, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following reliefs:-

(i) the condition regarding maximum age limit prescribed in the advertisement (Annexure-1) i.e. the condition of maximum age limit for the post of Lecturer (History) as 33 years may kindly be held as illegal and the same may kindly be ordered to be deleted from the said advertisement;

(ii) by an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondent R.P.S.C. may kindly be directed to allow the humble petitioner to appear in the interview and they may be further directed to consider the candidature of the humble petitioner for the post of Lecturer (History) as per her merit;

(iii) by an appropriate writ order or direction it may kindly be held that in view of the relaxation provided for Government employees i.e. five years and five years for women candidates, the humble petitioner is entitled to appear in the process of selection of the post of Lecturer (History) and she is also entitled to get appointment on the said post;

(iv) any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the humble petitioner.

2. The skeleton essential material facts indispensable for appreciation of the controversy raised in the instant writ application needs to be first noticed. The petitioner in response to an advertisement dated 8th June, 2001, issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission', for short), applied for consideration of her candidature for appointment to the post of Lecturer (History). The advertisement prescribed maximum eligibility age limit of 40 years as on 1st July, 2002, for the category of the petitioner (in service candidates), who participated in the selection process while working as Teacher Grade-III. However, the candidature of the petitioner was declined informing her vide communication dated 18th January, 2003, for she being overage in view of the condition of maximum age limit provided under the rules and in advertisement as her date of birth being 30th June, 1961 and thus, she was determined as overaged by 1 year and 3 days, by the respondent-Commission. The petitioner addressed a representation referring to sub-rule 2 of the Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, which provides maximum age limit as 40 years for in service Government servant candidates, and adding on to it a relaxation of 5 years for women candidate vide amendment dated 4th May, 2001; she was within the eligibility limit of 45 years. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that the advertisement provided for 33 years of maximum age as 1st July, 2002; whereas there is no such stipulation in the Rajasthan Service Rules. Thus, relying upon the provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules, she claimed the maximum age limit for a in service Government candidate as 40 years and adding a relaxation of 5 years thereto, for she being a woman candidate, the petitioner claimed herself as eligible and entitled for consideration of her candidature.

3. In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondent-Commission has filed its counter-affidavit pleading that the application of the petitioner was scrutinised and she was found over-aged as on 1st July, 2002, by 1 year and 3 days and she was informed to this effect vide communication dated 18th January, 2003. The representation of the petitioner was also responded declining her claim. It is admitted by the respondent-Commission that the petitioner being a Government employee, was entitled to participate in the selection process with the relaxed criteria of maximum age of 40 years only, whereas the petitioner has claimed relaxation of 5 years in addition to 40 years, being a woman candidate, and thus, she has claimed her eligibility upto the age of 45 years. The claim as staked by the petitioner is absolutely misconceived and this fact