ORDER 1. The Parliament passed an Act known as All India Services Act, 1951 (Act No. LXI of 1951) for the purposes of regulating recruitment and conditions of service of persons to be appointed to the All India Services, common to the Union and the States. In pursuance of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act, the Central Government notified, inter alia, the I. A. S. (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. Rules 4 (1) and 7 empower the Central Government for making recruitment through a competitive examination to be conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. In pursuance of Rule 7(2) of the Recruitment Rules, the Central Government promulgated the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment- by Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1955. 2. In the year 1973, a Committee was constituted to report on recruitment policy and selection methods under the Chairmanship of Dr. D. S. Kothari. As regards the age limit, the Kothari Committee recommended retention of existing age limits of 21-26 years. The recommendation of the Kothari Committee are reproduced below : "We have given considerable thought to the upper age limit for the Civil Services Examination. Whereas it is necessary that the entire process of the examination should ensure identification of the really capable among the competing candidates, we feel that adequate opportunity should be provided to the late blossomers and to those others who wish to pursue higher academic studies or obtain specialisation in a subject of their choice, before entering service careers. We feel that the interest of these candidates would be adequately protected by retaining the upper age limit of 26 years, with the usual relaxation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates and other categories as may be notified by the Government from time to time." 3. As regards the number of attempts to be allowed to a candidate at the examination, the Kothari Committee made the following recommendations : "3.7. Candidates (including those belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) will be permitted only two attempts for the Preliminary Examination and two for the Main Examination." 4. The Union Government did not agree with the recommendation of the Kothari Committee for reduction of age at that time, rather it decided to raise the upper age limit to 28 years. Candidates (including those belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) will be permitted only two attempts for the Preliminary Examination and two for the Main Examination." 4. The Union Government did not agree with the recommendation of the Kothari Committee for reduction of age at that time, rather it decided to raise the upper age limit to 28 years. The Union Government further took a decision that recruitment to the I. A. S., I. F. S., I. P. S. and certain Central Services/posts, Group `A' and Group `B' should be made through revised scheme of competitive examination called the Civil Services Examination. Unlike the earlier scheme comprising of three different examinations, the present scheme was a unified scheme. This comprises of two stages-Preliminary Examination (Objective Type) followed by the Main Examination (Written and Interview). The Preliminary Examination is meant to serve as a screening test. Bayed on the performance in the Preliminary Examination, the candidates are selected for appearing in the Main Examination. The above scheme was known as Civil Services Examination Scheme, 1979. 5. The Union Public Service Commission, thereafter, approached the Central Government for revision in the age limit prescribed for examinations conducted by the commission. While approaching the Government for revision, it took into consideration the need to help -late blossomers", and those others who wish to pursue higher academic studies before entering service careers. It has already been noted that Kothari Committee had suggested the retention of upper age limit for Civil Services Examination as 26 years and the recommendation of the. Commission was also the same. 6. The National Training Conference on Training held in September, 1982, at the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie, recommended, among other things, as follows : "The question of age limit for admission to the combined Civil Services Examination should be re-examined since it was felt that it is extremely difficult to positively mould the minds and attitudes of candidates entering a Civil Service after the age of 24 years." 7. Taking into account the various factors, mentioned above, and other relevant aspects, the Government of India decided to reduce the upper age limit from 28 to 26 years in 1983. Taking into account the various factors, mentioned above, and other relevant aspects, the Government of India decided to reduce the upper age limit from 28 to 26 years in 1983. However, in order to give a fair chance to the candidates, the Government decided that the revised upper age limit would be applicable with effect from the examination which would be held in the year 1985 and onwards so that candidates who were likely to be over-aged could take chance in the year 1984. 8. For taking the examination of the year 1985, the Union Public Service Commission reduced the age in accordance with the direction of the Central Government contained in clause 6(a) that : "A candidate must have attained the age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of 26 years on the 1st August, 1985, i.e., he must have been born not earlier than 2nd August, 1959, and not later than 1st August, 1964." 9. This decision of the Union was subsequently changed and was notified by means of a notification published in the Gazette dated January 21, 1985. The changed condition published is as follows : "A candidate must have attained the age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of 28 years on the 1st August, 1985, i. e., he must have been born not earlier than 2nd August, 1957 and not later than 1st August, 1964." 10. It may be noted here that this change was made only for the Civil Services Examination of the year 1985. On 7-12-1985, applications for the examination of the year 1986 for the Civil Services were invited. In this notification the maximum age notified was 26 years. Clause 4(ii) reads as under :- " vk;q lhek, %& ( d) mEehnokh dh vk;q 1 vxLr 1986 dks iwjs 21 o"kZ dh gks tkuh pkfg, fdUrq 26 o"kZ dh u gksuh pkfg, vFkkZr~ mldk tUe 2 vxLr] 1960 ls igys dk gksA 1 vxLr] 1965 ds ckn dk ugha gksuk pkfg,A " 11. The present petition has been filed challenging the reduction of age from 28 to 26 years by the petitioner on the ground that the age limit could be changed only by a regulation framed under the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, and since this has not been done by a regulation, the same does not have legal sanction. The present petition has been filed challenging the reduction of age from 28 to 26 years by the petitioner on the ground that the age limit could be changed only by a regulation framed under the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, and since this has not been done by a regulation, the same does not have legal sanction. We do not find any merit in this submission. 12. From a review of the relevant orders passed by the Central Government from time to time and the other connected matters, it appears that the Union Government itself took a decision which was published on October 22, 1983, that the upper age limit for admission to the Civil Services Examination would be reduced from 28 to 26 years. The necessary portion of this decision is quoted below : "The Government, in consultation with the State Government, have decided to reduce the upper age limit for admission to the Civil Services Examination and the Indian Forest Service Examination from 28 years to 26 years with usual relaxation to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may be notified from time to time. They have also decided that the upper age limit for admission to the Indian Economic Service/Indian Statistical Service Examination be also likewise reduced to 26 years. The Government have further decided that the reduced upper age limit shall be in force from 1985 Examination onwards. In other words, the reduced upper age limit shall not apply to these examinations to be conducted in 1984." 13. This decision was to come into force with effect from 1985. For the purpose of holding the Examination in the year 1985. Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms), New Delhi, issued a notification dated 8th December, 1984. Rule 6(a) of this notification gave the age, which has already been quoted by us above. On representations being made, the Union Government relaxed its implementation in respect of the examination of the year 1985. This reduction in age was done by the Central Government in accordance with the Regulations which had been framed in pursuance of Rule 7 of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. 14. In the year 1985, when the examination was notified, the Central Government made the Rules which also have been stated by us above. This reduction in age was done by the Central Government in accordance with the Regulations which had been framed in pursuance of Rule 7 of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. 14. In the year 1985, when the examination was notified, the Central Government made the Rules which also have been stated by us above. Upon an examination of all the relevant provisions it appears that the Central Government itself had made the Rules reducing the age from 28 years to 26 years. The raising of upper age limit to 28 years had adversely affected the element of competitiveness of the examination inasmuch as a relatively young candidate of 21 years of age was pitted against a relatively old candidate of about 28 years, giving concomitant handicap to the former and an unfair advantage to the latter. It also distorted the homogeneity of a batch of direct recruits making it difficult to mould a common outlook among them, that is necessary for an organised service. Further it resulted in very high degree of inter-service mobility resulting in a number of problems. The reduction in age having thus been made for achieving a purpose which was essential for the services, it is not possible for this Court to hold that the Central Government acted arbitrarily or irrationally in doing so. The reports of the various Commissions, from which we have extracted relevant portions, show that the reduction of age was felt essential to achieve the maximum efficiency. Since this policy is actuated and influenced predominantly by that consideration, it cannot be struck down as arbitrary. 15. It was argued by the petitioner's learned counsel that the Central Government had disregarded justice in reducing the age from 28 years to 26 years. It was urged that the age limit, as it stood before, was more just than the reduced age of 26 years. It is not possible for us to hold the provision of reduced age as ultra vires on that ground. The making of the Rule depended on the discretion of the Central Government. It would not be possible for this Court to substitute its own judgment for that of the Central Government where it has exclusive discretion. The judiciary can only arrest the execution of a statute when it conflicts with the Constitution. The making of the Rule depended on the discretion of the Central Government. It would not be possible for this Court to substitute its own judgment for that of the Central Government where it has exclusive discretion. The judiciary can only arrest the execution of a statute when it conflicts with the Constitution. It cannot run a race of opinions upon points of right, reason, and expediency with the law-making power. 16. Counsel for the petitioner next urged that the number of chances available to the petitioner as a result of reduction of age limit is now reduced to two, whereas previously it was three, and, therefore, reduction of age was illegal on that ground. Rule 4 of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 1979, with regard to the number of chances, provides as under : "Every candidate appearing at the examination who is otherwise eligible shall be permitted three attempts at the examination, irrespective of the number of attempts he has a ready availed of at the IAS etc. Examinations held in previous years : Provided that this restriction on the number of attempts will not apply in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates who are otherwise eligible. Note : 1. An attempt at a preliminary examination shall be deemed to be an attempt at the examination 2. If a candidate actually appears in any one paper in the preliminary examination, he shall be deemed to have made an attempt at the examination." 17. If the Central Government had the power to reduce the upper age limit from 28 years to 26 years for valid and cogent reasons, merely because that the petitioner would have only two chances available to him for appearing in the Examination, instead of three, does not invalidate the reduction. The number of chances which a candidate is entitled to avail is still three if he is within age limit as it was in the previous years. Rule 4 relating to the Civil Services Examination of the year 1986 reads as under : "Every candidate appearing at the examination, who is otherwise eligible, shall be permitted three attempts at the examination, irrespective of the number of attempts he has already availed of at the IAS., etc., Examination held in previous years. The restriction shall be effective from the Civil Services Examination held in 1979. The restriction shall be effective from the Civil Services Examination held in 1979. Any attempts made at the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examinations held in 1979 and onwards will count as attempts for this purpose." 18. From the above, it is clear that a person who is eligible alone is entitled to have three attempts. If he crosses the upper age limit on the relevant date, he will certainly have no more chances. For this purpose, the decision of the Central Government in reducing the upper age limit from 28 years to 26 years cannot be held to be illegal. 19. It was argued by Sri G. C. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner, by showing us an extract of a newspaper cutting that the Andhra Pradesh High Court has admitted a writ petition involving a similar point. It may be so, but as we are not persuaded to accept the contentions raised in this petition, we are unable to find a prima facie case in this petition. 20. We reject the writ petition summarily.