MALIMATH; J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in these three cases are working as Second Division clerks in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur. The services ol the petitioners in the first two cases, who were working as local candidates, were regularised and they are continued in service as temporary second Division Clerks. The petitioner in WP. 1654 of 1972 was appointed as a Second Division Clerk after selection, by the Divisional Level Recruitment committee, ( 2 ) BY Notification published in the Mysore Gazette on the 27th january, 1972, applications were invited for admission to competitive examination to be held by the Mysore Public Service Commission under the mysore State Civil Services (Recruitment to Ministerial Posts) Rules, 1966, for recruitment to the posts oi Assistants, First Division Clerks, Junior assistants and Second Division Clerks. The petitioners submitted their applications for the post of First Division Clerks, through proper channel to the Mysore Public Service Commission. Though other candidates received admission tickets for appearing lor the competitive examination, which was to commence on the 22nd July, 1972 at all district centres of the State, the petitioners did not receive any admission tickets. On enquiry at the office of the Public Service Commission, the petitioners were informed that as they have exceeded the age limit prescribed by Rule 6 of the Mysore state Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957, they were not eligible to apply for the post and that therefore admission tickets were not issued to them. ( 3 ) THESE three writ petitions were filed before the commencement of the examinations, challenging the action of the Mysore Public Service Commission, who is impleaded as respondent 2 in these writ petitions, denying them admission tickets for the examination. As the Mysore State Civil services (Recruitment to Minsterial Post) Rules, 1966 regulating recruitment to the posts in question has not prescribed any age limit for appointment, the same is governed by Rule 6 of the Mysore State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957 made by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred by Art. 309 of the Constitution (hereafter referred to as the General Recruitment Rules ). Clauses (1) and (4) (b) of Rule 6 of the General Recruitment Rules, as amended by the Mysore State Civil services (General Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 1971 issued under the Notification dt. 17th April, 1971 read as follows : " 6 (1 ). Clauses (1) and (4) (b) of Rule 6 of the General Recruitment Rules, as amended by the Mysore State Civil services (General Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 1971 issued under the Notification dt. 17th April, 1971 read as follows : " 6 (1 ). Save as otherwise provided in the rules of recruitment specifically made and applicable in respect of any post, every candidate for appointment to the State Civil Service by direct recruitment must have attained the age of eighteen and not attained the age of- thirty-three in the case of a person belonging to any of the Scheduled castes or Scheduled Tribes, twenty-eight in the case of any other person on the last date fixed for the receipt of applications or on such other date as may be specified by the appointing authority in respect of any posts or classes of posts: * * * * * * (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the maximum age limit for appointment shall be deemed to be enhanced in the following to the extent mentioned, namely:- (b) in the case of a candidate who is or was holding a post under the Government or a Local Authority or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Government temporarily as a local candidate, by the number of years he is or was holding such post. " the petitioners not being persons belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Schedule Tribes, would have been within the age limit prescribed if they had not attained the age of 28 years as on 28th February, 1972, the last date fixed for receipt of applications. It is not disputed that the petitioners who are not persons belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or scheduled Tribes are not within the age limit prescribed by Clause (1) of rule 6 of the General Recruitment Rules. It is also not disputed that the petitioners will not come within the age limit even by the application of sub-clause (b) of Clause (4) of Rule 6 of the General Recruitment Rules. ( 4 ) THE contention of the petitioners is that if clause (4) (b) of R. 6 of of the General Recruitment Rules, as it stood before its amendment by clause (3) of Rule 2 of the Mysore Stale Civil Services (General Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 1971, is applied, they would be within the prescribed age limit. ( 4 ) THE contention of the petitioners is that if clause (4) (b) of R. 6 of of the General Recruitment Rules, as it stood before its amendment by clause (3) of Rule 2 of the Mysore Stale Civil Services (General Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 1971, is applied, they would be within the prescribed age limit. Sub-clause (b) of Clause (4) of Rule 6, before its amendment in 1971, read as follows:"6 (4)-Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the maximum age limit for appointment shall be deemed to be enhanced in the following to the extent mentioned, namely: -. . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) in the case of a candidate who is or was holding temporarily a post under the Government, or holding a post under a local authority, by the number of years he is or was holding such post. "under the aforesaid rule, before Us amendment in 1971, the number of years during which a candidate is or was holding a temporary post under the Government or other authorities specified in the ruie could be added to the age limit prescribed by clause (1) of Rule 6. But, after the amendment of clause (4) (b) of Rule 6, it is only the service put in temporarily as a local candidate that can be added to the age limit prescribed by cl. (1) of Rule 6. The petitioners would be within the proscribed age limit if clause (4) (b) of Rule 6, before its amendment m 1971, is applied. It is not disputed that the petitioners will be age barred if clause (4) (b) of R. 6, as is in force, is applied to their cases. The contention of the petitioners is that Rule 6 (4) (b) makes a hostile discrimination against persons who were holding posts under the Government not as local candidates and that therefore the said clause is void as offending Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. If the amended Rule 6 (4) (b) is void, it is contended that Rule 6 (4) (b) as it stood before its amendment in 1971 gets revived, the advantage of which the petitioners can take. ( 5 ) THE first question for consideration is, as to whether Rule 6 (4) (b), as amended in 1971, offends Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as contended by the petitioners. ( 5 ) THE first question for consideration is, as to whether Rule 6 (4) (b), as amended in 1971, offends Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as contended by the petitioners. Clause (1) of Rule 6 proscribed the age limit for appointment to posts m the State Civil Service by direct recruitment, when no special rules are made m that behalf. The said clause prescribes that the candidate should not have attained the age of 33 years in the case of persons belonging to any of the Sheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and 28 years in the case of any other persons, on the last date fixed for receipt of applications or on such other date as may be specified by the appointing authority in respect of post or classes of posts. Clause (4) of Rule 6 is in the nature of an exception which increases the maximum age limit for appointment prescribed by clause (1) of Rule 6 in cases falling under clause (4 ). We are concerned, in these cases, only with the cases falling under sub-clause (b) of clause (4) of Rule 6. Sub-clause (b) of sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 is applicable only to candidates who are or were holding posts under the Government or a local authority or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Government. Under the said clause, persons who have served the Government, local authority or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Government are given benefit of the services rendered by them temporarily as local candidates for the purpose of maximum age limit. A classification is made between the candidates who have served the government, local authority or a Corporation owned or controlled by the government and those who have not rendered any such service. It is not the case of the petitioners that this classification, by which special advantage is given to candidates who have served the Government or a local authority or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Government, is in any way discriminatory as offending. Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. What is, however, contended is that a further classification between candidates who are or were holding posts under the Government or a local authority or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Government, into two categories, viz. Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. What is, however, contended is that a further classification between candidates who are or were holding posts under the Government or a local authority or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Government, into two categories, viz. , those who are or were holding the posts temporarily as local candidates and those who are or were not holding the posts temporarily as local candidates, offends Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution and that such a classification has no rational relation to the object to be achieved by the Rule. Persons holding the posts temporarily as local candidates are a class by themselves and therefore there is a reasonable classification between those who fall under the said clause and those who do not fall under the said clause. But, the further question for consideration is, as to whether the said classification has a nexus or relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Rule. The object of the Rule is to provide maximum age for appointment to posts in the service of the State. The object of prescribing Cadre and Recruitment Rules for employment to the service of the State is to select suitable persons for the post. Prescribing the minimum and maximum age limit for appointment is also for the purpose of achieving the said object. Maximum age limit is prescribed so that persons entering service should be able to put in a reasonable number of years in service and earn reasonable retirement benefits. A person who is assured of reasonable retirement benefits is expected to serve satisfactorily and honestly. That is the object of fixing maximum age limit for direct recruitment. After prescribing the maximum age limit under clause (1) of Rule 6, an exception is made in clause (4) (b), thereby giving an enhanced maximum age limit to persons who are or were holding posts under the Government, local authority or " a Corporation owned or controlled by the Government. The object of cl. (1) of Rule 6 in fixing the age limit of 28 years in the case of persons other than those belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is that they should be able to serve the Government for about 27 years. The object of cl. (1) of Rule 6 in fixing the age limit of 28 years in the case of persons other than those belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is that they should be able to serve the Government for about 27 years. The principle behind granting exemption by sub-clause (b) of clause (4) of Rule 6 for direct recruitment in respect of persons who have already served the government is that they have already rendered service in one or the other capacity to the Government. The number of years which the candidate has already served and the number of years which he can serve before his age of retirement, if recruited, together should be at least 27 years, which is the period contemplated for service under clause (1) of Rule 6. The effect of sub-clause (b) of clause (4) of Rule 6 is to give credit to the service already rendered for the purpose of ensuring that a candidate will have put in not less than 27 years in all in the service of the State. For the purpose of the Rule, the service under a local authority or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Government is treated as equivalent having regard to the control exercised by the Government and the general nature of the duties and responsibilities of persons serving under the local authorities or Corporation owned or controlled by the Government. If the object of the Rule is to secure suitable persons by direct recruitment to the service of the State so that persons employed will put in about 27 years of service in case of persons not belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled tribes, it is difficult to understand how the classification of candidates between two classes, those who have rendered service temporarily as local candidates and those who have rendered service otherwise than as temporary local candidates has any nexus or relation to the object of the Rule. If service was rendered by a candidate to the Govesnment the question whether that service was rendered by him temporarily as a local candidate or otherwise is irrelevant. The service rendered in either capacity is the same. Having regard to the object and principle behind fixing of maximum age limit, persons who have rendered service as local candidates and persons who have rendered regular service cannot be put on different footing. The service rendered in either capacity is the same. Having regard to the object and principle behind fixing of maximum age limit, persons who have rendered service as local candidates and persons who have rendered regular service cannot be put on different footing. We are clearly of the opinion that the classification made between those who have put in service as local candidates and those who have put in service otherwise than as local candidates has no nexus or relation with the object of the Rule. Sub-clause (b) of clause (4) of Rule 6 of the General recruitment Rules is, in our opinion, void as offending Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution and therefore deserves to be struck down ( 6 ) THOUGH clause (4) (b), of Rule 6, as amended in 1971, is void as offending Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, it is not possible to accede to the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that as a result of striking down the amended Rute. the Pule prior to its amendment gets revived. Vide Rudre Gowda v. Angadi Chikkanna, (1972) 1 Mys. L. J. 310. ( 7 ) AS in our opinion sub-clause (b) of clause (4) of Rule 6 prior to its amendment in 1971 does not get revived, the petitioners are not entitled to a mandamus directing the Public Service Commission to admit them to take examination. ( 8 ) AS we have struck down sub-clause (b) of clause (4) of Rule 6 of the Mysore State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1957 as offending Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, we issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from enforcing the same. No costs. --- *** --- .