JUDGMENT Radhey Krishn Agarwal, J. - By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Public Service Commission the treat him as not overage and to permit him to appear in interview for the posts of Regional Inspectors (Technical/Assistant Regional Inspectors (Technical). 2. The Public Service Commission on 13.9.89 and 6.10.89, issued an advertisement for conducting examination in 1989, for the posts of Regional Inspectors (Technical)/Assistant Regional Inspectors (Technical), According to the said advertisement the minimum age of the candidate should be 21 years and maximum 30 years on 1.7.1989 for candidate of general category and relaxation in maximum age was given for five years in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, backward classes and dependents of freedom fighters etc. Prior to said advertisement the then Chief Minister of U. P., Sri N. D. Tiwari, had made an announcement that person belonging to Saini Caste would be treated as person belonging to backward classes. Petitioner has alleged that in pursuance of the said announcement made by the Chief Minister, the petitioner, who was of Saini Caste, would come under the category of backward classes and, therefore he was entitled to get exemption in age of five years, as his date of birth was 3.12.1957 and on the relevant date that is July 1, 1989, he was below 35 years of age. Accordingly he applied for the said posts and had mentioned himself as a person belonging to backward class. In a separate application, he had mentioned that according to the announcement made by Chief Minister that Saini's would also be a person of backward class, he should be treated as of backward class. The respondent, that is, the Public Service Commission after scrutinising the application of the petitioner allotted roll number to him and permitted him to appear in written test, as well as in practical test on 26.8.90 and 28.9.90, respectively. He was successful in both the tests and, therefore, he was called for interview to be held on 25.11.91. On 25.11.91 petitioner came to the Commission office and produced a certificate indicating that he belonged to backward class but he was informed that he was not entitled for interview as he was overage being more than 30 years of age and he was not entitled for exemption as he did not belong to backward class. On 25.11.91 petitioner came to the Commission office and produced a certificate indicating that he belonged to backward class but he was informed that he was not entitled for interview as he was overage being more than 30 years of age and he was not entitled for exemption as he did not belong to backward class. The petitioner had tried to convince the respondent, Commission, that he being a person of Saini Caste should be treated as backward class and was entitled for exemption of five years in age. The petitioner was not allowed for interview. It has therefore been alleged in the petition that the said action of the Commission was arbitrary, illegal and was barred by principle of estoppel. 3. The respondent, Commission has filed counter-affidavit and has alleged that in the application, the petitioner has mentioned that he being of Saini Caste was going to be included in the list of backward classes and that he would furnish the requisite certificate later on and since he had claimed himself to be of backward class, he was provisionally permitted to appear in written as well as in practical tests and was also called to appear in interview. But he was not allowed in interview as a person of Saini Caste was not added in the list of backyard class as the notification for including person of Saini caste in the list of backward classes was issued on 10.9.91, that is much after the relevant date. The announcement made by the Chief Minister would not have any effect, unless the Government order is issued according to law. In fact such notification was issued on 10.9.91 and, therefore, the petitioner was over age on the relevant date mentioned in the advertisement. The Commission had therefore, rightly not permitted the petitioner to appear in interview. It has also been alleged that the fact that certain posts are lying vacant would not be material as the petitioner was over age. 4. Rejoinder affidavit was also filed by the petitioner alleging that once the Commission had scrutinised the application of the petitioner and had permitted him to appear in the test, as would be evident from the letter Annexure - RA-1, the Commission was estopped from debarring the petitioner to appear in the interview. The mere fact that the permission was granted provisionally would have no effect. The mere fact that the permission was granted provisionally would have no effect. The notification declaring person of Saini Caste was issued much before the date of interview, that is 25.11.91, and therefore the petitioner should be treated as of backward class. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's date of birth is 3-12-1967. He was more than 30 years of age on 1-7-1989, and he belongs to Saini Caste. It is also not in dispute that earlier person of Sami Caste was not included in the category of backward classes. The petitioner claims himself to be of backward class on the relevant date merely on the ground that the Chief Minister had made announcement that person of Saini Caste would also be included in the category of backward class. It is not disputed that notification to that effect was not issued till 1991. An Ordinance i. e. U. P. Public Services (Reservation for Backward Classes) (Amendment) Ordinance 1991 was issued on 15-2-1991. Another Ordinance No. 35 of 1991 was issued on 10-9-1991. By these two Ordinances U. P. Public Services (Reservation of Backward Classes) Act of 1989 was amended and in item No. 40 of the schedule of the said Act word "Saini" was also included within the category of backward class. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has on the basis of the said amendment made in the Act contended, that the said amendment would relate back to August 1977 as sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the said Act provides that the Act shall be deemed to have come into force on August 20,1977. I find no force in this contention. The Ordinance referred to above provides : "Section 2 shall be deemed to have come into force on November 12, 1990 and the remaining provisions shall come into force at once". By Section 2 of the Ordinance the aforesaid Act of 1989 was amended and the following proviso was added in subsection (1) of Section 2. "Provided that from November 12, 1990, such reservation in group A, B, C and D posts shall be twenty seven percent." 7. As mentioned above in item No. 40 of the word Saini was also included. 8. "Provided that from November 12, 1990, such reservation in group A, B, C and D posts shall be twenty seven percent." 7. As mentioned above in item No. 40 of the word Saini was also included. 8. The aforesaid provision would, therefore, clearly indicate that the provision regarding the amendment made in Section 2 would be applicable with effect from November 12, 1990 regarding percentage of the reservation whereas the other provisions would come into force from the date of ordinance. These provisions therefore, leave no room for doubt that the amendment made in item No. 40 by including Saini Caste among the backward class would not at all have retrospective effect from August 1977. The announcement made by the Chief Minister, would have no legal sanction, unless a Government notification or the ordinance is issued by implementing the such announcement made by the Chief Minister after getting approval from the cabinet. In my opinion therefore, on the relevant date, the petitioner though of course of Saini Caste, could not be included in the category of backward class and as such he was not entitled for exemption of 5 years in age on that basis. Admittedly on the relevant date he was more than 30 years of age and was therefore, over age and was not eligible to apply for the post advertised. In a case reported in 1989 Vol. 1, U.P. Local Bodies and Educational Cases page 324 Dr. M.C. Bindal v. R. C. Singh, (Supreme Court), the Public Service Commission had cancelled the recommendation given earlier in favour of the petitioner, Dr. Bindal, as after verifying the certificates submitted by him the Commission came to conclusion that he did not possess required 5 years experience in drug testing. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved the said action of the Commission and held - "This decision of the Public Service Commission in our considered opinion cannot be faulted. It is the constitutional requirement envisaged in Article 320, that the Commission will have to perform the duty of recommending the candidate fulfilling all the requisite qualifications for the post to the Government for being considered for appointment to the post concerned." 9. In the instant case also as observed above the Commission did scrutinise the documents filed by the petitioner and came to the conclusion that on the relevant dates the petitioner was not of backward class. In the instant case also as observed above the Commission did scrutinise the documents filed by the petitioner and came to the conclusion that on the relevant dates the petitioner was not of backward class. It is relevant to observe that in Annexure-C A-l it was very clearly mentioned that the permission to appear in the examination was being given treating the averments made in the application as correct and if subsequently those averments were found to be incorrect, the permission would be liable to be cancelled. The certificate Annexure-5 issued by Tahsildar on 11-6-1991, would also not help the petitioner as the said certificate itself indicates that the petitioner was treated as of backward class on the basis of notification issued by the Government on 12-2-1991. It has already been indicated earlier that the ordinance would not have any retrospective effect and would not give any benefit to the petitioner. 10. In view of the above discussions therefore this court is of the view that the petitioner was not of backward class on the relevant date and was therefore, over age and was not eligible to apply. 11. In the alternative the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Commission was estopped from debarring the petitioner to appear in interview, as the Commission had earlier permitted the petitioner to appear in the written and practical tests and had issued interview card. This contention too is devoid of substance. The permission was granted by the Commission treating the averments made in the application by the petitioner as correct. The petitioner has alleged that he was of Saini Caste and as per announcement made by the Chief Minister, he should be deemed to be of backward class. The Commission had permitted the petitioner to appear in the test on that basis but since no notification or ordinance was issued by the Government, during the relevant period the said averments made in the application moved by the petitioner became non est and the subsequent notification issued by the Government was not made retrospective. The act of the Commission permitting to the petitioner to appear in the test would not attract the principle of estoppel. Position would have been given different had the said notification been given a retrospective effect covering the relevant period under the advertisement. The act of the Commission permitting to the petitioner to appear in the test would not attract the principle of estoppel. Position would have been given different had the said notification been given a retrospective effect covering the relevant period under the advertisement. In my opinion therefore, principle of estoppel has no application and the action of the Commission is not permitting the petitioner to appear in interview cannot at all be faulted. 12. In the end it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that since certain posts are still lying vacant the Commission can permit to petitioner to appear in interview for such post. This contention too is barred of substance. Since the petitioner was over age on the relevant date he can not be considered on the basis of the said advertisement. If however the fresh advertisement is issued for the post, the petitioner would, of course, be free to apply for the same provided he fulfils the requisite qualification and conditions prescribed in such fresh advertisement. 13. All said and considered therefore, I am of the view that the petition has no force and is hereby dismissed. Cost easy.