Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri P.S. Baghel, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gautam Baghel, for the petitioners and perused the record.

2. The petitioners have sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the advertisement dated 19.5.2011 in so far as it provides upper age limit as 28 years and have also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide relaxation in age to the candidates born between 1.1.1980 to 1.7.1983 so as to make them eligible to appear in the selection in question.

3. Admittedly the recruitment in question is governed by the U.P. Police Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Services Rules 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “2008 Rules”) as amended from time to time. The aforesaid Rules do not contain any provision conferring power to the competent authority to relax the Rule regarding age. Rule 10 of 2008 Rules reads as under :

“A candidate for direct recruitment must have attained the age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of more than 28 years on the first day of July of calendar year in which vacancies for direct recruitment are advertised:

Provided that the upper age limit in the case of candidate belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and such other categories as may be specified.”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that for the last 10 years no recruitment on the post of Sub-Inspector has been made, therefore, the petitioners who were earlier eligible and entitled to be considered against the vacancies arising in 2007-08, have become overage and are entitled for relaxation of age. He placed reliance upon a decision in Special Appeal No. 325 of 2008 Smt. Abha Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 2.4.2008 in which it was observed that selection process shall be initiated by the respondents within 3 months.

5. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that selection process has been initiated in accordance with law. Since under the advertisement the petitioners were not eligible, hence cannot appear in the selection process.

6. In my view, the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners lacks substance.

7. It proceeds on the assumption that petitioners have a right to claim initiation of selection process as soon as the vacancies occurred in 2007 or 2008, and when they were otherwise eligible and qualified for the post on which the vacancies had occurred.

8. The question whether a person is entitled for such right as also the relaxation in age came up for consideration before a Division Bench in the case of Sanjay Agrawal v. State of U.P. and others, 2007(6) ADJ 272 (DB). In paragraphs 30, 32, 41 and 42 of the said judgment this Court held as under:

“(30) ................... The right of consideration commences from the advertisement as admitted and thus it would also adhere to various conditions of the advertisement. It cannot be said that the right of consideration flowing from advertisement is distinct from and severable from the various conditions of eligibility prescribed in the advertisement. A candidate would have a right of consideration in accordance with the advertisement if he fulfils various qualifications and eligibility prescribed thereunder and not otherwise. It is not open to a candidate to suggest that he is entitled for benefit of the advertisement partly and the other part which is against him is to be ignored. An advertisement which is a public offer to all persons concerned will have to be taken as a whole and not in part. If a candidate fulfils all the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement only then he can be said to have a right of consideration and not otherwise. Since the basic premise of the argument in our view does not stand, the entire building raised thereon also cannot stand.

(32) .......................The submission is that the Rule makes it obligatory to the Court to make recruitment at least once in every three years and in case it fail