M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Vivek Chaudhary for petitioner in the present writ petition as well as Sri R. K. Ojha in connected Writ Petition No. 9580 of 2000 and Sri Pushpendra for U. P. Public Service commission as well as learned standing counsel. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has done M. B. B. S. He has prayed that he should be called for interview for selection to the U. P. Provincial Medical Service. Annexure-3 to the writ petition is part of the advertisement, which states that the age of candidates should be between 21 to 32 years. However, there is also a mention in the advertisement that for "suyogya candidates, the age limit can be relaxed to 40 years. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has admittedly crossed the age of 32 years but he has prayed for relaxation of the age limit. It is not for this Court to grant age relexation as that can only be done by the competent authority. However, we are of the opinion that the mention in the impugned advertisement that the age relexation can be granted to suyogya candidates to 40 years is wholly arbitrary. There is no definition of the word suyogya candidate in the impugned advertisement or in any G. O or rule to which our attention has been drawn. The word suyogya is wholly vague. In our opinion, there should have been some definition of the word suyogya in which some specific objective criteria should have been mentioned. In the absence of such definition and objective criteria, the relexation for suyogya candidate is, in our opnlon, wholly arbitrary and hence viotative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. AIR 1978 SC 597 . the Supreme Court has held that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the constitution. The absence of an objective criteria to define the word suyogya makes the relexation for suyogya candidate wholly arbitrary and gives scope for the policy of pick and choose. ( 4 ) SHRI Pushpendra learned counsel for Commission has submitted that those candidates who have done M. D. /m. S. or Post Graduate degree in any discipline will be treated as Suyogya candidates. He has filed a counter-affidavit to this effect in Writ Petition No. 9580 of 2000. ( 4 ) SHRI Pushpendra learned counsel for Commission has submitted that those candidates who have done M. D. /m. S. or Post Graduate degree in any discipline will be treated as Suyogya candidates. He has filed a counter-affidavit to this effect in Writ Petition No. 9580 of 2000. It has been held by the Supreme Court in M. S. Gill v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 851 . that an affidavit cannot supplement the G. O. or rule or the impugned order. Hence we cannot take cognizance of this statement as mentioned in the affidavit as that criteria should have been mentioned in the advertisement or G. O. Itself. ( 5 ) HENCE we hold that the relaxation for suyogya candidates up to the age of 40 years is wholly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence this provision in the impugned advertisement is quashed. However, this will not ipso facto benefit the petitioner because admittedly the petitioner has crossed the age of 32 years. However, the petitioner may make a representation to the Commission or the State Government (as the case may be) for giving relaxation to a specific category of candidates who deserve relaxation and it is for the commission or the State Government (as the case may be) to consider the petitioners prayer and pass appropriate orders in the light of the aforesaid observations. ( 6 ) SRI R. K. Ojha learned counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9580 of 2000 submitted that earlier the Commission had granted relaxation to all the candidates upto the age of 40 years. We cannot go into this question but this matter may also be considered by the Commission or the state Government (as the case may be ). ( 7 ) THE writ petition is disposed of accordingly. .