Honble SHARMA, J.–The grievance expressed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that though he qualified written examination and physical test conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (for short RPSC) for the post of Sub- inspector but his candidature was cancelled subsequently treating him over-age. The petitioner has sought following relief - (i) that communication dated Feb. 15, 1997 be quashed and set- aside and respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to appear in the interview and if he is found suitable, to appoint him as Sub-Inspector with all consequential benefits. (ii) that Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 be struck down and petitioner be declared as entitled for consequential benefits. (2). The case of the petitioner is that he is member of Other Backward Class (OBC) being Gujar by caste. In pursuance of advertisement dated January 23, 1996 issued by the RPSC for the post of Sub-Inspector the petitioner appeared in the written examination and physical test and qualified the same. In terms of the said advertisement the maximum age of the applicant is to be looked into as on January 1, 1997, which should not be more than 23 years but the RPSC without taking into consideration the amended Notification dated November 13, 1996 whereby relaxation for 2 years has been granted to the candidates of O.B.C. in the maximum age limit, rejected the candidature of the petitioner vide communication letter dated Feb. 25, 1997 (Annexure-5) on the ground that he has become over age in terms of advertisement dated January 23, 1996. (3). Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the age limit fixed in the scheme of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules 1989 (for short the Rules 1989) has got no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The Rules which were in force prior to August 14, 1989 i.e. Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974 prescribed upper age limit upto 25 years for direct recruitment but in the Rules 1989 the State while repelling the Rules of 1974, has switched over the maximum age prescribed from 25 years to 23 years. Though the qualification required is the same i.e. Graduate. Though the qualification required is the same i.e. Graduate. Looking to the education pattern, where a child is not allowed admission in school before he attains the age of 5 years, an average person at the time of completing graduation is 22 years of age and if academic session in college is stretched little bit, a person easily attains the age of more than 23 years at the time of completing graduation. Under these circumstances the maximum age for recruitment to the police subordinate services is not justified more so where for the same post in Central Police Organisation CBI and Delhi Police the maximum age limit is 25 years. (4). Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel further contended that on the basis of Notification dated November 13, 1996 whereby the relaxation to the members of OBC has been granted for 2 years, the petitioner is within the age as per the provi cvsion existing under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1989. As per the scheme of the Rules the maximum age of the candidate is to be looked into as on January 1, 1997, and much prior to the same, relaxation has been granted to the members of O.B.C. by the rule making authority vide Notification dated November 13, 1996. In view of this letter there was no justification to reject the candidature of the petitioner on the pretext that he has crossed the maximum age limit as prescribed under the rules. The amendment made vide Notification dated November 13, 1996 will relate back to the date on which the reservation has been provided to the members of the O.B.C. category. Thus the act of RPSC in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is unconstitutional. Reliance was placed on R. Dayal vs. State (1) and State of Rajasthan vs. R. Dayal (2). (5). On the other hand, Mr. S.N. Kumawat learned counsel appearing for the RPSC urged that according to Rule 11 of the Rules 1989 the age of the petitioner has to be calculated as on January 1, 1997 next following the last date fixed for receipt of the application form i.e. March 23, 1996. On scrutiny of the application form of the petitioner it was found that petitioner was over age and had attained the age of 23 years 2 months and 2 days as on Jan. 1, 1997. On scrutiny of the application form of the petitioner it was found that petitioner was over age and had attained the age of 23 years 2 months and 2 days as on Jan. 1, 1997. The petitioner from the very beginning knew that he was over age as on Jan. 1, 1997 yet he applied for the post under advertisement therefore he is not entitled to any relief. In the advertisement it was clearly specified that in case it is found that candidate is not fulfilling the required conditions in terms of the Rules and advertisement, his candidature will be liable to be rejected. The petitioner can not be given benefit of eligibility acquired by him subsequent to the advertisement. (6). Mr. Kumawat further submitted that advertisement was issued for total 295 posts of Police Sub-Inspectors and in response to the said advertisement the RPSC received as many as 15642 applications. This fact is sufficient to disprove the theory of the petitioner and reveals that the pattern of education does not affect the recruitment at all. The framers of the Rules 1989 have fixed the minimum and maximum age limit in the interest of public at large considering the nature of job responsibility of the services which is in all respect justified, valid and reasonable. Reliance was placed on A.P.P.S.C. vs. B. Sarad Chandra (3), State of Raj. vs. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt (4), Miss Rekha Chaturvedi vs. U.O. Raj. (5), Sandeep Vishnoi vs. State (6) and Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs. State (7). (7). I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record as well as the case law cited before me. (8). I shall first take up the arguments in respect of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1989. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that said Rule be struck down being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Submissions of learned counsel are based on education pattern and requirements for the similar post in other status. I do not find any merit in the arguments. For the 295 posts advertised, the RPSC received as many as 15642 applications. This fact goes to show that thousands of the candidates of the age under 23 years as on Jan. Submissions of learned counsel are based on education pattern and requirements for the similar post in other status. I do not find any merit in the arguments. For the 295 posts advertised, the RPSC received as many as 15642 applications. This fact goes to show that thousands of the candidates of the age under 23 years as on Jan. 1, 1997 were available and education pattern did not come in their way in Sandeep Vishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) this court had occasion to examine the validity of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1989. It was indicated that "Rules of 1989 cannot be declared to be ultra vires and are not hit by the vires of inequality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as alleged." (9). Now 1 proceed to consider the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Notification dated November 13, 1996 will relate back to the date on which the reservation has been provided to the members of OBC category. On the basis of Notification the petitioner is within the age limit. As per the scheme of the Rules 1989, the maximum age of the candidate is to be looked into as on January 1, 1997 and much prior to the same, relaxation of 2 years has been granted to the members of OBC by the Rule making authority vide Notification dated November 13, 1996. 1 am unable to pursuade myself with the argument advanced by the learned counsel. (10). Indisputably, the petitioner was more than 23 years of age on January 1, 1997. According to Rule 11 of the Rules 1989 the age of the petitioner has to be calculated as on January 1, 1997 next following the last date fixed for receipt of the application form i.e. March 23, 1996. Rule 11 of the Rules 1989 provides thus- ``11. Age - A candidate for direct recruitment to the services must have attained - (a) for the post of Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander, the age of 20 years and must have attained the age of 23 years, on 1st January next following the last date fixed for receipt of application. Rule 11 of the Rules 1989 provides thus- ``11. Age - A candidate for direct recruitment to the services must have attained - (a) for the post of Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander, the age of 20 years and must have attained the age of 23 years, on 1st January next following the last date fixed for receipt of application. In Clause No. 11 of the Advertisement dated January 23, 1996 (Annexure-2) it was categorically mentioned that - ^^vk;q& ^^vkosnd 1 tuojh 1997 dks 20 o"kZ dh vk;q izkIr dj pqdk gks vkSj 23 o"kZ dk ugha gqvk gksA** Clause 8 of the Advertisement (Annexure-2) provides thus - ^^vr% vkosnu djus ls iwoZ vkosnd [kqn gh ;g lqfufpr djs fd og foKkiu@fu;eksa ds vuqlkj ik=rk dh leLr krsZa iwjh djrk gks vU;Fkk vik= ik;s tkusa ij mldh vH;fFkZrk vk;ksx }kjk ifj.kke ?kksf"kr gksus@p;u gksus ds mijkUr Hkh jí dj nh tk;sxhA** (11). It is thus evident that petitioner had knowledge that in view of clause 11 of the Advertisement (Annexure-2) he was not eligible being over age as on January 1, 1997 yet he applied and on being found that he crossed 23 years as on January 1, 1997, the RPSC rejected his candidature under clause 8 of the Advertisement. (12). At this juncture it is to be seen whether Notification dated November 13, 1996 is of any help to the petitioner. Whether the petitioner can be given the benefit of eligibility acquired by him subsequent to the Advertisement (Annexure-2). (13). In State of Rajasthan vs. Hitendra Kumar Bhatt (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded that ``a cut off date by which all the requirements relating to qualifications have to be met, cannot be ignored in an individual case. There may be other persons who would have applied had they known that the date of acquiring qualifications was flexible. They may not have applied because they did not possess the requisite qualification on the prescribed date. Relaxing the prescribed requirements in the case of individual may therefore cause injustice to others. (14). Following guidelines have been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Miss Rekha Chaturvedi vs. University of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra)- ``The candidates selected must be qualified as on last date for making applications for the posts in questions or on the date to be specifically mentioned in the advertisement/Notification for the purpose. (14). Following guidelines have been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Miss Rekha Chaturvedi vs. University of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra)- ``The candidates selected must be qualified as on last date for making applications for the posts in questions or on the date to be specifically mentioned in the advertisement/Notification for the purpose. The qualifications acquired by the candidates after the said date should not be taken into consideration, as that would be arbitrary and result in discrimination. It must be remembered that when the advertisement/ Notification represents that the candidates must have the qualifications in question with reference to the last date for making the applications or with reference to the specific date mentioned for the purpose, those who do not have such qualifications do not apply for the posts even though they are likely to acquire such qualifications and do acquire them after the said date. In the circumstances many who would otherwise be entitled to be considered and may even be better than those who apply can have a legitimate grievance since they are left out of consideration." (15). It is thus evident that the petitioners qualification shall be considered as on last date for making the application shown in the advertisement/Notification dated November 13, 1996 whereby relaxation of two years was given to the members of O.B.C. was not in existence on the last date of making the application and the members of O.B.C. who were to cross the age of 23 years on January 1, 1997 did not apply. If benefit of relaxation of age is given to the petitioner on the basis of Notification dated November 13, 1996, many members of O.B.C. who would otherwise be entitled to be considered and may even be better than the petitioner, can have a legitimate grievance since they did not submit applications in view of clause Eleven of the Advertisement (Annexure-2) in respect of age of the candidate. (16). Ratio of State of Rajasthan vs. R. Dayal and others (supra) cited by Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel is not applicable in the instant case. The issue in R. Dayals case was whether selection of two candidates was valid when the eligibility conditions stood changed w.e.f. 24.7.1995 and option was available in the rules to revise the select list. (16). Ratio of State of Rajasthan vs. R. Dayal and others (supra) cited by Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel is not applicable in the instant case. The issue in R. Dayals case was whether selection of two candidates was valid when the eligibility conditions stood changed w.e.f. 24.7.1995 and option was available in the rules to revise the select list. The DPC recommended nine candidates in accordance with the eligibility conditions prescribed in the recruitment rules then existing. On 24.7.95, the recruitment rules were amended in which eligibility conditions were changed. The amendment came into force with immediate effect. It was held by the Apex Court that the vacancies that arose subsequent to the amendment of the rules are required to be filled up in accordance with the law existing as on date when the vacancies arose. Even a carried forward vacancy is required to be considered in accordance with the law existing unless suitable relaxation is made by the Government. (17). For the reasons aforementioned, 1 am inclined to hold that rejection of the petitioners candidature by the RPSC cannot be said to be unjustified. (18). Writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. No costs.