Judgment ( 1. ) INVOKING the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioner has prayed for quashment of order dated 25-4-97 passed by the respondent No. 3 and further to issue a direction to allow the petitioner to attend the Eleventh WSES (Officers) Course commencing with effect from September, 1997 and to condone the age of the petitioner as she belongs to Scheduled Caste and for passing of such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 2. ) THE facts as have been unfolded in the writ petition are that an advertisement was published vide Anncxure P-1 inviting applications from unmarried females or issueless widows/divorcees candidates for grant of commission in the Indian Army. The petitioner submitted her application alongwith the documents in proof of her qualification and age on the due date i. e. , 14-1-97 for undergoing Women Special Entry Scheme (Officers ). The said application has been brought on record as Document No. 2. It is pleaded in the petition that she is a daughter of Ex-Army Officer and deserves to be given concession which are given to sons and daughters of Ex-Soldiers of Army, Navy and Air Force as per declaration given by Chief of Army Staff, respondent No. 2 herein. It has been setforth that the petitioner belongs to recognised Scheduled Caste in the State of Madhya Pradesh, and hence, her case could not have been rejected on the ground of over age. It is urged in the petition that the respondents have violated the instructions contained in Central Government Office Memorandum in the matters relating to relaxation and concession for Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates in the matter of recruitment/direct recruitment in service. The said circular deals with the relaxation and concession of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates and it has been brought on record as Document No. 5. It has also been urged that the rejection of the application of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of Articles 16 (4) and 335 of the Constitution of India. With these averments it has been pleaded that the age limit prescribed in the advertisement should have been condoned as far as the petitioner is concerned. ( 3. It has also been urged that the rejection of the application of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of Articles 16 (4) and 335 of the Constitution of India. With these averments it has been pleaded that the age limit prescribed in the advertisement should have been condoned as far as the petitioner is concerned. ( 3. ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that no concession is permissible for appointment to the children of Ex-Servicemen. It is pleaded that the defence services are special services and requirement of qualification and other factors are insisted upon to strengthen the service and standard and relaxation of age which holds good for civil service is not applicable for defence services. It has been specifically putforth that the petitioner is over age by 2 months, and hence, her case cannot be taken up for consideration. It has been setforth that circular contained in Document No. 5 is not applicable to the defence services and, therefore, the question of condoning of delays does not arise. It has also been pleaded that no notification for reservation has been made for services which deals with defence and in absence of specific notification the respondents are bound to adhere to the mandate of the advertisement. ( 4. ) A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner contending, inter alia, that the petitioner was entitled to get 5 years relaxation in age, and therefore, the rejection of his application is unjustified. Number of documents have been brought on record by way of rejoinder to show that age relaxation is given to a Scheduled Caste candidate at the time of appointment. Quite apart from the above references have been made to certain decisions of the Apex Court which deal with the age relaxation. ( 5. ) I have heard Mr. P. P. Ambedkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs. Indira Nair, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India for the respondents. It is submitted by Mr. Ambedkar that there are circulars invogue which prescribe for age relaxation in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and same cannot be given a go by by the respondents. Indira Nair, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India for the respondents. It is submitted by Mr. Ambedkar that there are circulars invogue which prescribe for age relaxation in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and same cannot be given a go by by the respondents. The learned counsel has also referred to the Office Memorandum dated 7-3-78 to show that the relaxation in age limit has to be given to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. Mr. Ambedkar has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Hans Raj Sharma Vs. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 2687 , Ashok Kumar Sharma and others Vs. Chandra Shekhar and another, (1997) 4 SCC 18 , Union of India and others Vs. Captain Jagpal Singh, 1998 Lab IC 146 (SC), Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh and others Vs. Slate of Bihar and others, 1998 Lab IC 230 (Pat) and Sub-Inspector Rooplal and another Vs. Li. Governor and others, (2000) 1 SCC 644 . It is relevant to state here that while referring to so many citations the learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra ). Resisting the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Ambedkar it is submitted by Mrs. Indira Nair, learned counsel for the respondents, that there is no notification or circular prescribing relaxation of age or increase of age in respect of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the purpose of recruitment to defence service. Submission of Mrs. Nair is that the circular or office memorandums which have been relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to the defence services. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision rendered in the case of Indra Sawhney etc. etc. Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1993 SC 477 . ( 6. ) TO appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar it is apposite to refer to the conditions with regard to age as per advertisement. Clause 3 of the advertisement deals with condition of eligibility. Clause 3 (b) deals with age limit which reads as under :- "age Limits : (i) AOC ENG. INT (For Graduation), EME SIGS and ASC (Adm. Offr) : 19 to 25 years (both between 2 Sep. , 72 to 1 Sep. Clause 3 of the advertisement deals with condition of eligibility. Clause 3 (b) deals with age limit which reads as under :- "age Limits : (i) AOC ENG. INT (For Graduation), EME SIGS and ASC (Adm. Offr) : 19 to 25 years (both between 2 Sep. , 72 to 1 Sep. , 78) (ii) AEC, ASC (Food Scientist), EME (M. Sc. and MCA ). INT (For Post Graduate Qualification) : 21 to 27 years (born between 2 Sep. , 70 to 01 Sep. , 76 ). " On a bare reading of the aforesaid stipulation it is absolutely clear that while providing the age limit two cut off dates have been provided. It is the admitted case that the petitioner was over age as per the advertisement as she was born on 25-6-70. Thus, she did not meet the requirement of age limit as per the advertisement. Submission of Mr. Ambedkar is that as per Office Memorandum and various circulars the maximum age limit is prescribed for direct recruitment to service or post shall be increased by 5 years in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. On a perusal of the documents brought on record it does not appear that the said circular and office memorandum are applicable to defence services. As has been indicated earlier, emphasis has been given on the decision rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra ). In the aforesaid case the Apex Court held as under :- "where applications arc called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, an impermissible justification. It cannot act contrary to it. The reasoning in the majority opinion that by allowing the 33 respondents to appear for the interview, the recruiting authority was able to get the best talent available and that such course was in furtherance of public interest is, an impermissible justification. The minority opinion in the 1993 decision in Ashok Kumar Sharma case that the 33 respondents, who were not qualified on the date of submission of the application but had acquired the requisite qualification before the date of interview, could not have been allowed to appear for interview was right. " From the aforesaid decision it is quite vivid that a candidate has to be qualified on the date of submission of application. In the case at hand the petitioner was not qualified as she was not within the age limits as prescribed under the advertisement. Though Mr. Ambedkar placed heavy reliance on the aforesaid decision I am of the considered opinion that the said judgment does not render any assistance to him. As has been stated earlier the learned counsel referred to number of judgments but on a perusal of the same I am of the firm view that the said decisions are not at all relevant for deciding the controversy in question. ( 7. ) AT this juncture I may profitably refer to the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) wherein in Paragraph 112 the Apex Court expressed thus : "112. While on Article 335, we are of the opinion that there are certain services and positions where either on account of the nature of duties attached to them or the level (in the hierarchy) at which they obtain, merit such situations, it may not be advisable to provide for reservations. For example, technical posts in research and development organisations/departmenls/institutions, in specialities and super specialities in medicine, engineering and other such courses in physical sciences and mathematics, in defence services and in the establishments connected therewith. Similarly, in the case of posts at the higher echelons e. g. , Professors (in Education), Pilots in Indian Airlines and Air India, Scientists and Technicians in nuclear and space application, provision for reservation would not be advisable. Similarly, in the case of posts at the higher echelons e. g. , Professors (in Education), Pilots in Indian Airlines and Air India, Scientists and Technicians in nuclear and space application, provision for reservation would not be advisable. As a matter of fact, the impugned Memorandum dated 13th August, 1990 applies the rule of reservation to "civil posts and services under the Government of India" only, which means that defence forces are excluded from the operation of the rule of reservation though it may yet apply to civil posts in defence services. Be that as it may we are of the opinion that in certain services and in respect of certain posts, application of the rule of reservation may not be advisable for the reason indicated hereinbefore- Some of them are: (1) Defence Services including all technical posts therein but excluding civil posts. (2) All technical posts in establishments engaged in Research and Development including those connected with atomic energy and space and establishment engaged in production of defence equipment. (3) Teaching posts of Professors and above, if any, (4) Posts in super-specialities in Medicine, Engineering and Other scientific and technical subjects. (5) Posts of pilots (and co-pilots) in Indian Airlines and Air India. The list given above is merely illustrative and not exhaustive. It is for the Government of India to consider and specify the service and posts to which the Rule of reservation shall not apply but on that account the implementation of the impugned Office Memorandum dated 13th August, 1990 cannot be stayed or withheld. We may point out that the services/posts enumerated above, on account of their nature and duties attached, are such as call for highest level of intelligence, skill and excellence. Some of them are second level and third level posts in the ascending order. Hence, they form a category apart. Reservation therein may not be consistent with "efficiency of administration" contemplated by Art. 335. We may add that we see no particular relevance of Article 38 (2) in this context. Art. 16 (4) is also a measure to ensure equality of status besides equality of opportunity. " In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law there remains no scintilla of doubt that the question of reservation or relaxation in age limit to defence services does not arise. Art. 16 (4) is also a measure to ensure equality of status besides equality of opportunity. " In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law there remains no scintilla of doubt that the question of reservation or relaxation in age limit to defence services does not arise. As in the case at hand the petitioner sought recruitment to Indian Army under the Women Special Entry Scheme (Officers) scheme she cannot claim the benefit of age relaxation on the ground that she belongs to Scheduled Caste by relying upon circulars which are applicable to other services. ( 8. ) IN view of my foregoing premises I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.