JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner is claiming that he should be allowed to appear in the interview for the Combined state Services Examination held by U. P. Public Service Commission and be provided with all the benefits of Ex-Service men including reservation in service after quashing the Government letter/order dated December 28,1989, contained in Annexure-1, depriving him of the same. 2. The petitioner was born on June 3, 1983 and as such, he was within the age limit prescribed for appearing in the Combined State Services Examination of 1988-89 held by U. P. Public Service Commission (P. S. C.) without any relaxation in age. After serving in the armed forces for three years seven months and ten days he was discharged from the service of the Army on November 10, 1982 on medical ground. In pursuance of the advertisement by Public Service Commission contained in Annexure-2 for recruitment of Combined State Services Examination the petitioner appeared in the written examination and qualified it. The petitioner was exempted from examination fee on being an army personnel. Subsequently, by virtue of the letter/order of the Public Service Commission dated December 28, 1989, contained in Annexure-1, the petitioner was informed that since the petitioner had not served in the Army at least for five years he could not be considered for appointment against the quota reserved (in the services) for Ex-Service men and thus he was not entitled to the benefits available to the Ex-Service men. This has given rise to the filing of this writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opp. party No. 2 it is asserted that the benefits of five years' relaxation in upper age limit for the Ex-Service men for appearing in the Combined State Services examination as well as for the appointment against the reserved quota fixed for Ex-Service men in the said services, are available to those who have completed not less than five years' service in the Army. In other words the basis for either of the two benefits being available to Ex-Army personnel is the minimum duration of five years' service in the Army and since the petitioner is admittedly lacking in this basic qualification inasmuch as his total period of service in the Army was three years, Seven months and ten days, he is not entitled to the benefit against reservation quota fixed for Ex-Service men in the services for which the examination in question was held. 3. In the supplementary affidavit furnished by the petitioner he asserted that according to the definition of Ex-Army personnel given in the Rules framed by the Central Government vide Notifications dated December 15, 1979 and September 7, 1981 contained in Annexures A-2 and a-3 and in the Rules of 1977 framed by the State Government what is required is that the person who has served for a minimum period of six months after attestation in the Army, is treated as an Ex-Army personnel. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is accordingly an Ex-Service man as he had put in more than three years' of service in the Army. So far as the Rules of the Central Government (contained in Annexures-2 and 3) are concerned, they apply to the recruitment in Central Services and posts. In the instant case, the petitioner has not appeared as a candidate for the Central Services and Posts but has appeared for the Combined State Services Examination. This examination is to fill-up the posts of State Services. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Rules of the State Government also define Ex-Service men as one who has served for not less than six months in Army. In support of it the only Rules which have been referred to and relied upon from the side of the petitioner in this Court, are those filed as Annexure 4 to the supplementary affidavit. This annexure is also quite irrelevant and is inapplicable in the instant case for the reason that it relates and applies to the recruitment for Class three and Class four services in the State. Undoubtedly, the Combined State services Examination in question is not for the recruitment for Classes I,ii or IV Services. Through the said examination recruitments, are being made for higher services in the State. Undoubtedly, the Combined State services Examination in question is not for the recruitment for Classes I,ii or IV Services. Through the said examination recruitments, are being made for higher services in the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner despite having been given sufficient opportunity to cite any Rule which could support, failed to point out or place the Court any rule or order of the Government to make out or substantiate the petitioner's stand that less than five years service in the Army can entitle him to fall within the definition of "ex-Service Men", and to claim appointment against the quota reserved for Ex-Service Men in the Combined State Services Examination of higher classes like 'a' and 'b'. On the other hand, from the side of the opp. party No. 2. Order dated February 28, 1985 contained in Annexure- No. C-2 has been filed which makes out that for the purposes of State Services of Classes I and II five years' relaxation in upper age limit is allowed only to those Ex-Army personnel who have put in not less than five years' service in the Army provided that they have not been dismissed/removed from service on the ground of mis-conduct, in-efficiency, physical unfitness or incapacity. The provisions relating to Emergency Commission and other short-term commissioned services referred to in the same Government Order are not relevant in this case because it is not the petitioner's case that he has served in such Commissions or Service. Similarly, the condition of age laid down in the advertisement in question by Public Services of Classes I and II five years' relaxation in upper age limit is allowed clearly lays down that the relaxation upto 5 years in age would be admissible only to those completing not less than five years' service in Army. It is a fact that the petitioner does not claim relaxation in age for the reason that he is within the age limit prescribed under the said Notification for the general candidates. It is the consistent stand of the State Government that for the purposes of relaxation in age as well as for claiming the posts against reserved quota for Ex-Service men, the basic qualification is completion of at least five years' service in the Army by the candidate. It is the consistent stand of the State Government that for the purposes of relaxation in age as well as for claiming the posts against reserved quota for Ex-Service men, the basic qualification is completion of at least five years' service in the Army by the candidate. This principle was applied by the opposite party No. 2 in the case of another candidate named Arvind Kumar Singh as is borne out from the Government letter dated October 5, 1989 sent to the Secretary, u. P. Public Services Commission contained in Annexure No. CA-I as well as by the impugned Government letter/order dated December 28, 1989 contained in Annexure-I which relates to the petitioner. There is nothing wrong on the part of the State Government for having adopted and applied the principle that completion of not less than five years' service in Army is a necessary requirement for claiming five years' relaxation in upper age limit for appearing in the examination and the same condition of five years' service is a requisite for claiming post/service against the quote reserved for Ex-Service men. As the petitioner did not complete a minimum period of five years' in the service of the Army, he is not entitled to claim either of the benefits. Thus the claim of the petitioner is bound to fail. But there is no justification for not declaring the result of the petitioner who has appeared in the written papers of the examination in question and appeared for interview under the interim order of this Court dated 11/1/1990. He is entitled to be considered on merits for general seats relating to the services for which Combined State Services examinations of 1988-89 was held. 4. The writ petition for quashing the State Govt.'s letter/order dated 28/12/1989 contained in Annexure-1 as well as for providing the petitioner the benefits of Ex-Service men including post or service against the quota reserved for Ex-Service men in the services, is dismissed. In case the result of the said examination has already been declared, the respondent No. 2 is directed to declare the result of the petitioner also within two weeks. In case the result of the said examination has not been declared, result of the petitioner is to be declared along with the result of the other candidates. No order as to the costs. Petition Dismissed.