A.K. MATHUR, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25.2.1992, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police by ignoring the maximum age limit prescribed under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 and if otherwise found suitable, he may be offered appointment under the Rajasthan Recruitment of the Dependents of Government Servants Dying while in Service Rules, 1975. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for the convenient disposal of his writ petition are that the father of the petitioner was working on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, when he died on 20.1.1991. After his death, an application was moved by the petitioner to the respondent for seeking appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under the Rajasthan Recruitment of the Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (referred to hereinafter as the Rules of 1975). It is also submitted that the petitioner respondent has already appeared in the examination, held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the post of Sub-inspector of Police in the year 1987 and he cleared that written-examination. However, he could not be appointed because he was lower in merit. After the death of his father, the petitioner respondent filed an application for service under the Rules of 1975 The application of the petitioner-respondent was processed and his application for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police was rejected as the petitioner was being over age. According to the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1989) the upper age limit for the post of Sub-Inspector / Platoon Commander is 23 years as prescribed under Rule 11 (A) of the Rules of 1989. Since the petitioner wasl27 years of age, therefore he was not found to be eligible for appointment. The matter came up before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge following the decision given in the case of Shanti Gopal Purohit vs. State of Raj. Since the petitioner wasl27 years of age, therefore he was not found to be eligible for appointment. The matter came up before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge following the decision given in the case of Shanti Gopal Purohit vs. State of Raj. & ors, (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4815/1990, decided on 25.2 1992) held that by virtue of Rule 4 which gives overriding effect over all other Rules, the provisions of this Rule shall prevail and accordingly the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed as aforesaid. Aggrieved against this juig-ment of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been filed by the State. 3. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. G.K. Vyas, Caveator for the respondent. 4. Mr. Udawat, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged before us that since the recruitment under the Police Department is govensel by the Rules of !989 and there, under Rule 11 (a) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, the upper age limit for the Sub-Inspector/P!atoon Commander is 23 years. Therefore, the requirement of the parent law cannot be dispensed with. In support thereof learned counsel has invited our attention to Sunil Mattad vs. State of Rajasthan(2). 5. We have gone through the aforesaid decision as well as the judgment given in the case of Shanti Gopal Purohit (supra). In the case of Shanti Gopal Purohit (supra) the learned Judge has made a specific reference to Rule 4 which gives over-riding effect to the Rules of 1975 over all the Rules. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1975 reads as under- 4. Overriding effect of these rules:- These rules and any orders issued there under shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any rule, regulations or orders in force at the commencement of these rules." 6. A perusal of this rule clearly goes to show that the Rules of 1975 will prevail notwithstanding any thing to the contrary contained in any rule, meaning thereby that the Rules of 1975 will have an overriding effect to other Rules including the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, whereunder the appointment is sought. If that is not the intention of the framers then no recruitment would be possible to the wards of the deceased employees. If that is not the intention of the framers then no recruitment would be possible to the wards of the deceased employees. In fact, the very purpose of enacting the Rules of 1975 was to do away with the minimum requirement of the service rules so as to provide relief to the wards of the deceased Government employees. Therefore, keeping in view that object, Rule 4 of the Rules of 1975 was enacted giving an overriding effect to these rules. Since under the provisions of the Rules of 1975 i.e. Rule 8 provides the relaxation for age and other requirements and in that the minimum age has been reduced to 16 years and no upper age limit has been laid down. Further more for the wife of deceased Government servane it is clarified that there shall be no maximum upper age limit. This shows the intention of the framers of the Rules that they wanted to liberalise employment under these Rules without any impediment of any other rules so as to provide employment to the wards of the deceased Government servants. Since Rule 4 of the Rules of 1975 clearly lays down that the Rules of 1975 will have the overriding effect, therefore no impediment can be read of the age as prescribed under Rule 11 (a) of the Rules of 1 89. The only rider which has been put under the Rules of 1975 is subclause (2) of Rule 8 which lays down that the procedural requirement for selection such as written test, typing test or interview by a Selection Committee or any other Authority to interview the candidate in order to satisfy that the candidate will be able to maintain the minimum standards of work and efficiency expected on the post or to prescribe any condition if considered necessary for acquiring any training or proficiency e g. typing speed or any other qualification etc. within a reasonable period after such employment can be imposed under these Rules. Therefore, these procedural requirements can be insisted upon by the authorities after interviewing the candidate if they so like and they can also put the condition to acquire the necessary efficiency within the time prescribed. There is no ceiling of age prescribed under the Rules of 1975. within a reasonable period after such employment can be imposed under these Rules. Therefore, these procedural requirements can be insisted upon by the authorities after interviewing the candidate if they so like and they can also put the condition to acquire the necessary efficiency within the time prescribed. There is no ceiling of age prescribed under the Rules of 1975. In the present case the petitioners application was not considered for the post of sub Inspector of Police on the ground that he was over age according to Rule 11 (a) of the Rules of 1989. This is not correct as there is no such age limit can be read for appointment under the Rules of 1975 and specially in view of Rule 4 such condition cannot be imposed so as to deprive this incumbent of employment. In the case of Sunil Mattad (supra) the learned Single Judge of Jaipur Bench has not laid down that any age ceiling as prescribed under the Rules of 1989 can be read for employment of such ward of deceased Government servant. The learned Judge has also made a reference to Rule 4 which gives an overriding effect to these Rules. The learned Judge also held that only the authorities can insist for calling the incumbent for interview in order to adjudge the suitability for appointment. Therefore, this judgment of the learned Single Judge of Jaipur Bench also does not lay down any contrary proposition. The learned Single Judge in the case of Sunil Mattad (supra) only enforced the sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1975. But that is not the case here. Here, the candidature of the incumbent has been rejected on the ground that the candidate is being over aged. Therefore in this background, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is correct and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.