S. A. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is serving as Range Forest Officer Exten- sion Range Tilakwada in Baroda District since February 1981. He holds B. Sc. Degree with Chemistry and a Diploma in Military Science in First Class. Prior to his joining service the petitioner had served in Naval N. C. C. and also attend- ed All India Naval Camp Vishakhapatnam in year 1974. The date of birth of the petitioner is 13-11-1953. ( 2 ) IN pursuance to an advertisement issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) on 24-4-1983 for filling in 155 posts in the Gujarat Administrative Service Class I and Gujarat Civil Service Class I and Class II by combined competitive examination the petitioner applied and appeared in the written competitive examination and he was declared successful in the said examination. However respondent No. 2 by his letter dated 4-1-1985 informed the petitioner that since the petitioner did not fall within the age limit as prescribed and shown in the advertisement he cannot he called for the viva voce and personality test Being aggrieved by this letter and also by letter dated 4-3-1985 the petitioner has filed this petition and pray- ed for quashing and setting aside the said letters under which the petitioner was not called for viva voce and personality test and for the issuance of direction against the Government to relax the age limit. ( 3 ) MR. M. G. Doshit for the respondents resisted the claim of the petitioner 8 stated that according to the practice of the Commission all the persons who apply are called for written examination. He has further drawn my atten- tion to the prescribed admission form wherein some conditions are printed. Condition No. 7 thereof which is material for our purposes provides that in accordance with the rules for examination if the applicant is possessing neces-- sary qualification viz. educational age and other requirements then only he will be called for viva voce test. Mr. Doshit further submits that thousands of applications are received and it is not possible for the Commission to scrutinise each and every application by calling for documents. They are allowing the applicants to appear at the examination without scrutinising their initial eligi-- bility. educational age and other requirements then only he will be called for viva voce test. Mr. Doshit further submits that thousands of applications are received and it is not possible for the Commission to scrutinise each and every application by calling for documents. They are allowing the applicants to appear at the examination without scrutinising their initial eligi-- bility. It is not disputed that the petitioner is found successful at the written examination but when his application was scrutinized it was found by the Commission that the petitioner was not eligible on account of his over age and therefore. the Commission refused to call the petitioner for viva voce test. ( 4 ) MR. I. S. Supehia for the petitioner relies upon rule 16 of the Gujarat Civil Services Recruitment Examination) Rules 1980 material part of which reads :"16 The examination shall be in three Parts as Shown in schedule II Part I and II shall be written examination and Part III shall be viva voce and personalities Test. (b) The Commission shall fix the qualifying aggregate marks to be obtained by a candidate in Part I of the Examination in Schedule II and answer books of Part II of only such candidates who qualify in Part I of the Examination shall be got as- sessed by the commission. The Commission shall fix the qualifying standard after adding the marks obtained by the candidates in Part I and Pare II of the written examination and shall call only those candidates who fulfil qualifying standard of viva voce and Personality Test"there is a proviso to this rule with regard to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes with Which we are not concerned. ( 5 ) IN my opinion this rule does not help Mr. Supehia because there is no dispute that the petitioner has cleared that written test and is entitled to be called for viva voce test provided he was initially eligible to apply for appearing at the examination. However it is pertinent to note that the aforesaid statutory rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India also provide for the age. However it is pertinent to note that the aforesaid statutory rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India also provide for the age. Rule 10 thereof reads as under :"10 A candidate for admission to the examination must have attained age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of 28 years on the data mentioned by the Commission in the advertisement : provided that the upper age limit prescribed above shall be relaxable upto a maximum of five years if a candidate belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe : provided further that the upper age limit shall be relaxable upto a maximum of ten years if a candidate is physically handicapped. Save as provided the age limit prescribed in no case be relaxable. In my opinion the aforesaid portion of rule 10 underlined by me is a complete answer to both the arguments of Mr. Supehia. Being confronted by this Mr. Supehia argued that since the General Rules provide for relaxation Govern- ment has power to relax the age of the petitioner. In my Opinion this argument is completely misconceived. The General Rules are applicable only in case where there are no special rules or no provision of such nature in the special rules. In the instant case the Gujarat Civil Services Recruitment (Examination) Rules 1980 are statutory rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution. which specifically provide not only for relaxation but by a negative mandate provide that except for the relaxations prescribed in the aforesaid two provisos to rule 10 the age limit prescribed is in no case relaxable. Therefore there is no merit in any of the contentions of Mr. Supehia that the age limit is relaxable. 6 Apart from the aforesaid clear legal position the argument of Mr. Supehia can also be negatived on the interpretation of the General Rule. viz the Gujarat Civil Service Classification and Recruitment of the General Rules 1967 Mr. Supehia has relied upon rule 16 of the said Rules which gives power of relation to the State Government in the interest of public service. It is not shown as to how the appointment of the petitioner will be in the interest of public service Mr. viz the Gujarat Civil Service Classification and Recruitment of the General Rules 1967 Mr. Supehia has relied upon rule 16 of the said Rules which gives power of relation to the State Government in the interest of public service. It is not shown as to how the appointment of the petitioner will be in the interest of public service Mr. Supehia relies on paragraph 8 of the petition wherein it is state that the petitioner is possessing great merits inasmuch as he is a Science Graduate and holding a Diploma in Military Science securing First Class. The petitioner has also served as a Naval N. C. C. Code for about years and had attended the All India Naval Camp at Vishakhapatnam. He was a Forest Officer for more than four years. No doubt the petitioner is possessing ments but even then it is not possible to help him on account of the prohibition. ( 6 ) SECONDLY relaxation which is also provided in the General Rules can only be granted by the State Government if the same is in public interest. But this is also discretionary power of the State Government and for which this Court cannot issue a writ of the State Government and for issuance of a writ of mandamus. (1) the applicant must show that he has legal right of the performance of a legal duty (not discretionary) by the party against whom man- damus is sought and such right is subsisting and (2) the duty enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by Constitution a statute common law or by rules or orders having the force of law ( AIR 1954 SC 592 ). N0 such right exists in favour of the petitioner nor any corresponding duty to the authority Since the petitioners was not eligible at the data when he made the application. one cannot find any fault on the part of the Commission when it has not called the petitioner for viva test though he had several other merits. ( 7 ) THE petition therefore deserves to be rejected only on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible when he made the application and relaxation of age is not permitted under the statutory rules referred to above. ( 8 ) THE petition is therefore summarily rejected. Notice discharged with on order as to costs. Petition summarily dismissed. .