JUDGMENT 1. - It is alleged that after passing Sr. Secondary School Examination (10+2) in the year 1994 with 84% marks and standing in merit list at S.No. 25, the petitioner applied for admission in P.E.T. Examination. 2. This Court while issuing notice to show cause directed the respondents to allow the petitioner provisionally to appear in the examination vide order dated 28.5.1996. 3. In compliance with show cause notice, reply alongwith documents (Annexure R-2/1 to R-2/6) was filed stating inter alia that a High Power Committee consisting of five Principals of five Engineering College of Rajasthan has taken a policy decision for prescribing minimum age as 17 years for the Entrance Examination of P.E.T. which was approved by the Govt. Learned counsel relied upon the Full Bench decision rendered in Gautam Kumar V. State of Rajasthan, 1987(1) RLR 30 and Kuntal Gupta V. Board of Secondary Education, 1967 RLW 157 (DB). 4. As agreed, this case is heard finally. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The arguments that non-prescribing minimum age in some other Institutions is discriminatory, cannot be accepted for the reason that prescribing minimum age limit for admission to a particular examination is within the domain and competence of that Authority so also the examinations at two places are conducted by different authorities as per their own rules and regulations. As incumbent can appear in the examination of that Institute where no prescribed age limit has been fixed, therefore, fixing the age limit for examinations as per the Regulations is not hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India and cannot be quashed on that basis. 7. The other argument of the learned counsel is that in the earlier year, the respondents have also prescribed the age limit but later on the Board withdrew the same and therefore, the petitioner may also be given the same treatment, otherwise it will amount to discrimination. 8. It is true that similarly situated persons should be treated alike but as stated in the reply, no age limit as was prescribed in year 1994 and the same was prescribed in the year 1995 only and was withdrawn by the Government on the ground that it was not mentioned in the booklet as well as in the notice inviting applications. While withdrawing the Notification it was made clear that from 1996 and onwards it will be enforced and for that a special Notification was issued and published in the newspaper as per the rules. It was incorporated also in the booklet of 1996 and the students were knowing it well that the eligibility as per the conditions of the Notification is that the candidate appearing in the PET examination should not be less than 17 years of age and also should not be more than 23 years of age as on 1st October, 1996. However, the upper age limit was relaxed in favour of the candidates belonging to SC/ST, for three years. In view of the above and the fact that no other candidate below age limit was admitted, which has not been controverted the petitioner cannot take advantage of the notification which was earlier withdrawn and the ground for discrimination has no substance. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner has not completed 17 years of age on the date on which the advertisement was issued, i.e. 1.10.1996 and as per the advertisement the petitioner was ineligible, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. 10. This fact can also not be lost sight of that so many meritorious persons below 17 years age have not applied, and rightly so, as per the conditions of the advertisement, so if the petitioner is allowed, it will be discriminatory to the other persons who may be meritorious but did not apply for want of eligibility. 11. In the last, Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been declared successful in the examination, so as a special case, he may be admitted in P.E.T. Examination, 1996. The writ petition falls due to ineligibility of the petitioner itself. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from this Court as per the interim order dated 18.5.1996 itself. 12. A reference may be made to the decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered in Ashok Kumar Vs. University of Jodhpur, 1993 WLR (3) 801 , St. John's Teachers' Training Institute Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others, 1993(4) JT 78 and Mr. Bhushan Uttam Khare Vs. The Dean, BJ Medical College and others, 1992(1) JT 583 . 13. No other point was argued before me. 14. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere. John's Teachers' Training Institute Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others, 1993(4) JT 78 and Mr. Bhushan Uttam Khare Vs. The Dean, BJ Medical College and others, 1992(1) JT 583 . 13. No other point was argued before me. 14. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.However, dismissal of this writ petition will not come in the way of the petitioner in approaching the concerned authority who may consider the case of the petitioner for relaxation of age in accordance with law if there is any such provision in the rules.Petition dismissed. *******