JUDGMENT : G. Bikshapathi, J. All the Writ Petitions can be disposed of by a common order, as they arises out of the recruitment to the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 1998. 2. The Writ Petition No.34306 of 1998 was filed assailing the order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.2172 of 1998 and batch, dated 24-9-1998. Subsequently, some more O.As were filed seeking relief under the Presidential Order and also basing on the order passed in O.A.No.2172 of 1998 and batch and the Tribunal granted interim directions from time to time. Finally O.As were also disposed of, without recording any finding on the merit of the case, on the ground that the applicants were appointed to the post, and as such no further orders were necessary. Aggrieved by those orders, the Government carried the matter in the present Writ Petitions. Therefore, it is found appropriate to dispose of the connected matters at a time, so as to put a quietus to the lis. 3. Before we go to other Writ Petitions, we shall consider the Writ Petition No.34306 of 1998 and batch, which were filed against the order passed by the Tribunal dated 24-9-1998 in the batch of O.As. referred to above. However, it is necessary to refer to some essential facts leading to the filing of batch of O.As and also the Writ Petitions. 4. The State Level Police Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Recruitment Board') issued a notification, dated 11-3-1998, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) and Reserve Sub-Inspector (Armed Reserve) in the State of Andhra Pradesh. However, in this batch we are only concerned with Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). The requirement inter alia for making an application to the said post is that one should have completed 21 years of age as on 1-7-1997 and should not have completed 25 years of age. Certain categories of persons like S.C./S.T./B.C. etc. were given age relaxations. Eligible candidates submitted their applications. At this juncture applications in O.A.No.2172 of 1998 and batch came to be filed by the O.C. candidates seeking directions to grant age concession of five years over and above the permissible notified maximum age. The relief as claimed by them in the words of the Tribunal is as follows: 'The O.As. Eligible candidates submitted their applications. At this juncture applications in O.A.No.2172 of 1998 and batch came to be filed by the O.C. candidates seeking directions to grant age concession of five years over and above the permissible notified maximum age. The relief as claimed by them in the words of the Tribunal is as follows: 'The O.As. filed are with a request to call for the records relating to and connected with the Advertisement in Rc.No.534/R&T/Admn.I/97, dated 11-3-1998 and G.O.Ms.No.561, GAD, dated 11-10-1988 and to declare that the not extending the concession of age of 5 years in computing the upper age limit for the O.C. candidates alone as discriminatory, illegal and arbitrary and also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the same is based on "descent' of an individual and violative of the Judgment in R.P.No.2599/1987, dated 9-10-1987, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of India and consequently quash the clause 3(a) of the Advertisement dated 11-3-1998 and consequently that, the said age concession of 5 years relaxation in upper age limit will not apply to the posts in Police, Forest, Excise and Fire Services Departments as illegal and to direct the respondents to accord uniform age concession to all the competing candidates without any discrimination as ordered by the erstwhile Tribunal in R.P. No.2599/1987.'- By virtue of the Interim orders passed by the Tribunal, those applicants were allowed to sit for examination and ultimately O.As were allowed by an Order dated 24-9-1998. Against the said O.As, W.P.No.34306 of 1998 filed by the Government. However, in the meanwhile, out of the applicants who approached the Court seeking higher age limit, moved the contempt applications before the Tribunal on the ground that they were selected and were not sent for training. At the pain of contempt, some of the applicants were issued with the appointment orders and they were sent for training. A condition was stipulated in the order of appointment that the appointments were subject to result in the Writ Petition No.34306 of 1998. At the pain of contempt, some of the applicants were issued with the appointment orders and they were sent for training. A condition was stipulated in the order of appointment that the appointments were subject to result in the Writ Petition No.34306 of 1998. Subsequently, some more applications came to be filed by the candidates belonging to 1998 selection, in O.A.Nos.470 and 639 of 1999 seeking directions to conduct the selection in accordance with the Presidential Order and to fill up 70% of vacancies by local candidates and 30% of vacancies by open category candidates viz., local and non-locals basing on zone-wise selection and by computing the vacancies up to 11-3-1998 and not up to 31st July, 1997. The Tribunal, however, allowed the same with the following directions: 'In the result we hold that: (1) The selection to the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil) is a multi-zone cadre selection and the procedure stipulated in G.O.(P) No.763, General Administration (SPF-A) Department, dated 15-11-1975 should be followed. (2) The respondents have to compute the total number of vacancies available as on the date of the Notification i.e., 11-3-1998. (3) The respondents are directed to appoint the applicants as Sub-Inspectors (Civil). However, their appointment will be subject to the outcome of W.P.No.34306 of 1998 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.'- The said Order became final as no Writ Petitions were filed by the Government. 5. In pursuance of the said directions, some more applicants came to be appointed on the same condition. Since some of the candidates who were appointed by virtue of the interim orders passed by the Tribunal secured lesser marks than the other candidates, they approached the Tribunal to appoint them as Sub-Inspector of Police on the ground that the persons with lesser marks were appointed. Initially, their cases were also directed to be considered and appointment orders were directed to be issued pending the O.A. Finally, when the O.As came up for final hearing, the Tribunal observing that the Government implemented the orders of the Tribunal, closed the matter, as no further orders are necessary. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Government carried the matter in this batch of Writ Petitions. 6. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Government carried the matter in this batch of Writ Petitions. 6. It was the contention of the applicants before the Tribunal that they are entitled for five years relaxation on the ground that the similarly situated persons were granted the relaxation in respect of services. It was also stated before the Tribunal that even in respect of recruitment for Sub-Inspectors of Police, the Tribunal allowed age relaxation in R.P.No.2599 of 1987 and the Government had withdrawn the S.L.P. before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the applicants claimed five years relaxation in this recruitment also as of right. 7. It is the contention of the learned Advocate General that the recruitment must be in conformity with the special rules, where under, the minimum and maximum age has been fixed for O.C candidates which is 21 and 25 years. Therefore, in the absence of any relaxation under the Rules, the candidates with higher age, over and above the prescribed age under the rules, are not eligible and the notification issued was in accordance with the said rules. It is also stated that in G.O.Ms.No.270, Home (Pol.C) Department, dated 2-4-1990, Government issued special rules for recruitment to the posts of Police Executives, wherein upper age limit was prescribed in respect of Sub-Inspectors, which is only 25 years and this upper age was not introduced in the year 1998, for the first time. In all the recruitments, the upper age limit was continued at 25 years only. Further, the age relaxation was given to certain other categories right from inception. It is being made clear by the Government from time to time in the statutory rules that the relaxation of upper age was not applicable to A.P. Police Subordinate Service and A.P. Special Armed Forces. Some time, the Government also issued relaxation for certain period. The relaxation was made to the posts other than the posts of Executive nature in Police, Excise and Forest Departments etc., Reference was made to G.O.Ms.No.843, dated 17-9-1971, and G.O.Ms.No.354 dated 3-6-1983. However, the G.O.No.354 was struck down by the Tribunal in R.P.No.2599 of 1987, dated 9-10-1987. In G.O.Ms. No.561, General Administration (Services. A) Department, dated 11-10-1988, age relaxation was again given by six years for direct recruitment posts other than the posts in executive nature i.e., Police, Excise, Forest and Fire Services Departments. However, the G.O.No.354 was struck down by the Tribunal in R.P.No.2599 of 1987, dated 9-10-1987. In G.O.Ms. No.561, General Administration (Services. A) Department, dated 11-10-1988, age relaxation was again given by six years for direct recruitment posts other than the posts in executive nature i.e., Police, Excise, Forest and Fire Services Departments. In 1990, Special Rules were framed for A.P. Police Subordinate Services. When recruitment was made in 1991, upper age was modified from 25 years to 27 years as one time measure only. Even in 1993, age relaxation was given in respect of the posts other than the Police, Excise, Forest and Fire Services posts and similar Writ Petitions were filed seeking relaxation in respect of 1993 recruitment. The Tribunal by order, dated 11-2-1994, in O.A.No.3621 of 1993, held that the applicants were not allowed to claim higher age relaxation. However, during 1994, age relaxation was granted by the Government from 25 years to 26 years as one time measure in respect of S.I. Recruitment. Again in 1997, Ad hoc Rules were framed as Stipendiary Cadet Trainees S.Is., etc., in G.O.Ms.No.331, dt.22-12-1997. In pursuance of the said Rules, the notification was issued on 11-3-1998. It is also contended on behalf of the State that in respect of same recruitment in 1998, some more O.As were filed seeking relaxation of age by five years in O.A.Nos.2470 and 2639, 2749 and 3196 of 1998 and the Tribunal dismissed the O.As. on 23-4-1998, on the ground that the have no right to claim relaxation of age in the absence of any provision in the statutory rules. However, in this batch, the Tribunal held that the applicants are entitled for relaxation of age. 8. While dealing with the matter, the Tribunal framed the following issue: 'Whether prescribing 25 years as the general upper age limit as given in clause 3(a) in the Notification dated 11-3-1998 calling for applications for recruitments for the posts of S.Is of Police (Civil) and S.Is of Police (AR) is in order.'- 9. The learned Tribunal referred to various G.Os, issued by the Government from time to time. The learned Tribunal referred to various G.Os, issued by the Government from time to time. It has also referred to the G.Os where relaxation was granted as one time measure and in some other O.As ultimately held as follows: 'The distinction sought to be drawn between those candidates seeking entry into the police, Excise, Forest and Fire Services Departments and those appearing for selection to other services is on the basis of the physical standards. Risking repetition, it has to be stated that at one time the uniform maximum age for entry into all services was 30 years. Even now, while keeping the maximum age for entry into police executive subordinate posts for O.C. candidates at 25 years, the respondent State Government have been allowing higher age limits to them frequently, calling them as "one time measure' on the ground of gaps in the recruitment. The fact that the categories like SCs, STs, BCs and Ex-Servicemen cannot but be given higher age concessions for the reasons given cannot also be ignored. The question here is whether the requirement for keeping the physical standards is relevant at all. Without much dilating on the issue, one has to admit that, considering the nature of the duties of the lower executives in the police and the other similar Departments, there is need to ensure that those getting into these posts satisfy the physical standards set. There is no gainsaying the fact also that the recruitment system for these lower executive subordinate posts in the police department is taking care of this through proposed pre-qualifying/screening tests. The respondents are free to plug any loopholes in the system of physical screening by additions or modifications to the existing rules or guidelines. And only there, whatever be their ages, who ultimately fulfill the physical standards, will be selected. Therefore, it is considered that this sort of distinction as to the higher age drawn between the O.C. candidates appearing for selection to lower executive posts in Police and the other similar Departments and the O.C. candidates appear for selection to other posts in the police and similar Department and other Departments is rather invidious. 22. Now, it is considered that in the light of the position the applicants have a case and they are entitled to be considered for recruitment to the posts of S.Is. (Civil) and (S.Is. Armed Reserve). 22. Now, it is considered that in the light of the position the applicants have a case and they are entitled to be considered for recruitment to the posts of S.Is. (Civil) and (S.Is. Armed Reserve). Accordingly, Clause 3(a) of the Advertisement dated 11-3-1988 issued in R.C.No.534/R&T/Admn.I and the provision in the Ad hoc Rule issued in G.O.Ms.No.561 GA (Ser.A) Department, dated 11-10-1988 to the extent it restricts the upper age, in the case of unemployed the O.C. candidates, to 25 years, for recruitment to executive posts in police and other similar Departments on consideration of physical standards, are struck down, with a direction to respondents also to consider the cases of the applicants who were allowed to apply in furtherance of the impugned notification dated 11-3-1998 and who had appeared in the tests/examinations/interviews conducted. 23. Incidentally, besides referring to the requirement of physical standards, the desirability of keeping the upper age of entry into lower executive posts in the police and similar departments at a level lower than the upper age limits allowed to the other categories of posts, considering the nature of the duties of the lower executives in the police and other similar departments. As has already been stated, subsequent to issue of the above Rule through G.O.Ms.No.561, GAD, dated 11-10-1988, excepting the posts in the lower executive categories in the police and other similar departments from the application of the maximum age limit/s as applicable to the other categories, the respondent Government had allowed higher age benefit two to three times ranging from 25 to 28 years particularly on the ground of gaps in recruitment and as one time measures; leaving the general upper age limit even in the Special Rules made in respect of the A.P. Police Subordinate Service Rules made in respect of the A.P. Police Subordinate Service Rules made in respect of the A.P. Police Subordinate Service Rules as it is, i.e., 25 years, whatever be the justification for allowing general upper age limits exceeding 25 years, whatever be the justification for allowing general upper age limits exceeding 25 years subsequent to the issue of the impugned Government order dated 11-10-1989 in the matter of recruitment to lower executive subordinate posts in the Police Department or in any other similar have been allowing higher upper age limit than 25 years in the case of the O.C. candidates and the respondent Government does not seem to be against allowing slightly higher upper age than 25 years in the case of the O.Cs., with permissible age concessions in respect of other categories like SCs., STs., and BCs. Probably, instead of allowing higher age limits in its and starts keeping the upper age limit for the O.C. candidates as it is under the Special Rules, it would be advisable that the Respondent Government examines and takes a decision to increase the upper age limit for the O.C. candidates, with due concession to the eligible categories, for the future. Here the balance of convenience seems to be with fixing the upper age limit for the O.C. candidates at 28 years i.e. between the present upper age limit of 25 years and the higher age of 6 years available for the O.C. Candidates over and above 25 years in respect of non-executive lower posts as allowed by the ad hoc rule issued by G.O.Ms.No.561, GAD, dated 11-10-1988. It is felt that this limit of 28 years, if fixed for the future, would not only to a great extent meet the requirements of the respondents in attracting fairly young blood for the lower executive posts in the police as well as other similar departments, but in meeting the demand of the unemployed O.C. youth that they should be allowed reasonably higher age than 25 years for competing. Also, the respondents would do well to avoid gaps in the recruitment in future. 24. Further, it has to be seen whether the maximum age concession of 5 years over and above the permissible maximum age in the case of open O.C. candidates allowed to the lower executives i.e., P.Cs., H.Cs, and A.S. Is and lower Ministerial service in the Police Department and the regular employees in the A.P. State Government and 5 more years in the case of B.Cs, STs, and BCs is justifiable. It has to be appreciated here that the lower executive or the Ministerial staff in the Police Department or the regular in-service employees in the State Government have their own normal channels of promotion. Also admittedly they are better placed than the unemployed youth. Therefore, let alone allowing them the additional maximum age concession unduly, permitting them to compete itself appears unjustifiable. Nobody can deny that the employment opportunities available in the Government or Public Sector either in the State or in the country are absolutely limited. In view of this persisting unemployment position and also for the reason that the in-service personnel have promotional opportunities, it is strongly felt that, at least, denying to the in-service personnel, including SCs, STs, BCs and Ex-Service and Ex-Census personnel, the age concession as allowed in the Notification, at least, for the future would be most advisable. 25. The respondents are, therefore, directed to examine and take due policy decision and necessary follow up action on paras 23 and 24 above, preferably before the next recruitment.'- 10. The question that falls for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is sustainable- 11. Admittedly, the recruitment is required to take place in accordance with the rules prescribed and framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The question that falls for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is sustainable- 11. Admittedly, the recruitment is required to take place in accordance with the rules prescribed and framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is also not in dispute that the special rules were framed for recruitment to the posts of Police Sub-Inspector, in which minimum age and maximum age prescribed is 21 and 25 years respectively. In the recruitment rules as also in the notification, the age limits are as follows: '3. Age Limit for Civil S.Is. Men, S.Is. (Women) and R.S.Is. Armed Reserve (Men) Candidates: (a) Must have completed the age of 21 years but should not have completed the age of 25 years as on 1st July, 1997. (b) In case of Police Executive i.e., P.Cs. H.Cs. and ASIs, and Police Ministerial staff, must have completed the age of 21 years and must not have completed the age of thirty years as on 1st July, 1997. The upper age limit is relaxable by: (a) 5 years for S.C., S.T. and B.Cs. (b) 3 years plus service rendered for Ex-servicemen subject to maximum of 10 years. (c) 5 years of Regular A.P. Government employees and (d) 3 years for employees with certified service of 6 months in Census Department.'- 12. It is beyond pale of controversy that the recruitment to various posts in the Police force is required to be undertaken in accordance with the statutory rules prescribed and framed under proviso to Art. 309 Constitution of India. It is also not in dispute that the Special Rules were framed in A.P. Police Subordinate Service in G.O.Ms.No.1263, GAD dated 26-8-1959. It has been amended from time to time. 13. A further amendment was issued to the said G.O.Ms.No.1263, dated 26-8-1959 by G.O.Ms.No.270 Home (Police) Department, dated 2-4-1990. Under the amendment G.O. the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, Civil Class in Class-I Category-I, following is the age limit for direct recruitment: 'Must have completed the age of 21 years and must not have completed 27 years. If the candidate is recruited by transfer from the A.P. Police Ministerial Service, for this must have completed the age of 21 years, but not have completed 25 years.'- 14. The relaxation of age is provided in respect of the S.C., S.T. and B.C. and other categories in G.O.Ms.No.843, dt. 17-9-1997. If the candidate is recruited by transfer from the A.P. Police Ministerial Service, for this must have completed the age of 21 years, but not have completed 25 years.'- 14. The relaxation of age is provided in respect of the S.C., S.T. and B.C. and other categories in G.O.Ms.No.843, dt. 17-9-1997. Under Rule 2(k) of the State and Subordinate Services Rules, it was specified that the upper age limit mentioned in the Rules does not apply to the A.P. State Police Subordinate Service and A.P. Special Armed Services. The Government by G.O.Ms.No.354 dated 30-6-1983 issued the notification raising 6 years age for the purpose of direct recruitment to various posts except the posts of executive nature in Police, Forest, Fire and Excise Departments, for which physical standards have been prescribed. It has also been stated in the said notification that it would apply to the vacancies notified on or after 1-7-1983 effective for a period of one year till 30-6-1984. 15. While that was the situation, a notification was issued by the Government for filling up the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police by direct recruitment. Two applicants challenged the ad hoc rules framed in G.O.Ms. No. 354 contending that excluding the posts under executive category in Police, Excise, Forest and Fire Service Departments was illegal and arbitrary and therefore, they sought appropriate directions in R.P.No.2299 of 1987. The advertisement was issued in the year 1983 vide Advertisement No.18 of 1983. The learned tribunal after considering the material struck down the following words in G.O.Ms.No. 354, dated 30-6-1983 being invalid and unconstitutional: 'Other than the posts of executive nature in Police, Excise, Forest and Fire Service Departments for which the physical standards have been prescribed.'- However, it was found by the tribunal that only the 2nd petitioner K. Laxma Reddy was entitled for the benefit and other petitioner Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy was beyond 33 years. 16. It appears against the said matter, the Government carried the matter before the Supreme Court and the Government had decided to withdraw the Special Leave Petition. While the matter stood thus, the Government issued again another G.O.Ms.No.561, dated 11-10-1988 relaxing the age for direct recruitment by 6 years, which is made applicable to direct recruitment posts other than the posts of executive nature in Police, Excise, Forest and Fire Service Departments and for which the physical standards have been prescribed. While the matter stood thus, the Government issued again another G.O.Ms.No.561, dated 11-10-1988 relaxing the age for direct recruitment by 6 years, which is made applicable to direct recruitment posts other than the posts of executive nature in Police, Excise, Forest and Fire Service Departments and for which the physical standards have been prescribed. The following is the extract of the Order: 'In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby makes the following ad hoc rules; The said rule shall be deemed to have come into force on this 1st day of July, 1988. Ad hoc Rule Notwithstanding anything in the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, or the Special Rules or the Ad hoc Rules the maximum age limit prescribed in the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules or in the relevant special rules for appointment by direct recruitment to the posts, other than the posts of Executive nature in Police, Excise, Forest and Fire Service Departments for which Physical Standards have been prescribed in the State and Subordinate Services (including the posts in the Last Grade Services) under the State Government to be made by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission or other competent authorities or bodies, shall be raised by six years for the purpose of direct recruitment that would be notified on or after the 1st July, 1988. The above age concession shall also be made applicable for sponsoring the over aged candidates by the Employment Exchange who are on their rolls for the purpose of making temporary appointment provided the sponsoring of candidates takes place prior to the terminal date of age concession and that the candidates with the enhanced upper age limit is eligible for the regular direct recruitment.'- 17. A notification was issued in the year 1991 for direct recruitment to the post of S.I. in which the age limit was prescribed between 21 and 25. But, however, the Government issued yet another G.O.Ms.No.98 on 8-2-1991 making ad hoc rules raising the age up to 27 years as one time measure. A notification was issued in the year 1991 for direct recruitment to the post of S.I. in which the age limit was prescribed between 21 and 25. But, however, the Government issued yet another G.O.Ms.No.98 on 8-2-1991 making ad hoc rules raising the age up to 27 years as one time measure. The following is the notification: 'Notification In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby makes the following Ad hoc Rule, namely: Ad hoc Rule Notwithstanding anything in the special rules for the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.270, Home (Police) Department, dated the 2nd April, 1990, the maximum age limit prescribed in the said rule for the recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil) Reserve Sub-Inspectors(Armed Reserve) shall be raised to 27 years for the said posts for the purpose of direct recruitment that would be notified on or before the 1st July, 1991 as one time measure.'- The said Rule came to be challenged by the persons, who were above 27 years and the tribunal in O.A.No.9082 of 1991 and Batch dated 11-4-1991 dismissed the Batch of O.As. In that regard, the tribunal observed as follows: 'It is next contended on behalf of the Applicants that the maximum age limit for the present recruitment to Sub-Inspector of Police should have been 28 years as no recruitment took place during the years 1988, 1989 and 1989 (sic. 1990). It can be seen from the contents of G.O.98, dated 8-2-1991 enhancing the maximum age limit to 27 years as one time measure for the current recruitment, the reasons given were that since the recruitment has not been reported to during the years 1989 and 1990, the maximum age limit is enhanced by 2 years as one time measure for the recruitment that is scheduled to take place during the year 1991. It is contended on behalf of the Applicants that no recruitment took place even during the years 1988 and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was no recruitment only in the years 1989 and 1990. It is contended on behalf of the Applicants that no recruitment took place even during the years 1988 and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was no recruitment only in the years 1989 and 1990. According to the Applicants that the Government, under mistaken impression that no recruitment took place only for 2 years 1989 and 1990, enhanced the maximum age limit by 2 years but there was no recruitment even during the year 1988 and therefore, the enhancement should be 3 years and not by 2 years. Sri Sridhar Sagar, learned G.P. has submitted that there was recruitment in the year 1988 as the notification issued in the year 1987 inviting applications was intended for recruitment of Sub-Inspectors and the process of selections was completed in the year 1988 and therefore it cannot be said that there is no recruitment in the year 1988. The counter also explains to the same effect. The maximum age limit prescribed under Rule 12(k) of the General Rules is not applicable to the Police Subordinate Service Rules by virtue of the proviso added in the year 1971. Subsequently, the age limit as prescribed in the A.P. Police Subordinate Service Rules would apply for recruitment to that service. At one point of time the maximum age limit under the A.P. Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1959 was 30 years and the said provision was amended from time to time. Earlier, the recruitment of the posts to the category of Sub-Inspector of Police was within the purview of Public Service Commission for some time and later the recruitment was entrusted to separate agency. Either the Public Service Commission or any other body entrusted with the task of recruiting the Police Sub-Inspectors has to follow the Rules prescribing the maximum age limit by the Government from time to time. Though, the maximum age limit at one point of time was 30 years under the Police Subordinate Service Rules, the age limit was subsequently fixed at 25 years in the rules. However, the maximum age limit was being enhanced either by 2 or 3 years by the Government, as one time measure, for a particular recruitment. Though, the maximum age limit at one point of time was 30 years under the Police Subordinate Service Rules, the age limit was subsequently fixed at 25 years in the rules. However, the maximum age limit was being enhanced either by 2 or 3 years by the Government, as one time measure, for a particular recruitment. Though, the Government issued Orders in G.O.Ms.No.354 GAD, dated 30-6-1983 enhancing the maximum age limit for recruitment to Subordinate Service by 6 years, the said G.O. was not applicable to the Police Subordinate Service, as evident from the ad hoc rule introduced by the said G.O. The Government by issuing ad hoc rules from time to time regulating the maximum age limit for recruitment to the Police Subordinate Service has an earlier occasion enhanced to 20 years for the recruitment that took place in the year 1987-88. the enhancement was only for the recruitment in 1987-88 and that was not an amendment to Police Subordinate Service Rules. So is the case, the amendment issued in G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 8-2-1991 enhancing the maximum age limit from 25 years to 27 years for the recruitment schedule to take place during the year 1991. The said G.O. specifically says that the relaxation of age is done as one time measure. It is always open to the Government to relax the Rules providing for enhancement of the maximum age for a particular recruitment. The enhancement was made not for the benefit of any individual, but for the benefit of all candidates, who are aspiring the recruitment to the Police Subordinate Service. Though the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 110 GAD, dt.15-2-1991 enhanced the maximum age limit by 2 years from 26 years to 28 years for recruitment to Group-I Services, the Applicants cannot claim that the same enhancement should be given for recruitment to the Police Subordinate Service also. In the said G.O., the maximum age limit was enhanced by 2 years from 26 years to 28 years for Group-I Services, for the suppelmentary examination schedule in the year 1991. The reasons for enhancing the age limit were in the said G.O. The reasons given therein are not applicable for recruitment to the Police Subordinate Service. In the said G.O., the maximum age limit was enhanced by 2 years from 26 years to 28 years for Group-I Services, for the suppelmentary examination schedule in the year 1991. The reasons for enhancing the age limit were in the said G.O. The reasons given therein are not applicable for recruitment to the Police Subordinate Service. Further, the maximum age limit enhanced for Group-I Service was 2 years in the said G.O. and in the case of recruitment the said G.O. and in the case of recruitment to Police Subordinate Service also, the maximum age was enhanced by 2 years in G.O. 8-2-1991. In any event, it cannot be said that the Government have adopted a discriminatory method in issuing the G.O. 110, dated 15-2-1991 and G.O.Ms.No. 98, dated 8-2-1991. Therefore, Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are not attracted. The fact that the Government have been enhancing the maximum age limit on different occasions prescribing a higher age limit than the one prescribed under Rule 9 of the A.P. Police Subordinate Service Rules or Rule 12(k) of the General Rules, would legad to logical conclusion that the Government are aware of the proviso under the Rule 12(k) of the General Rules and for that reason they have to resort to issue ad hoc amendment to Rule 9 of the A.P. Police Subordinate Service Rules enhancing maximum age limit, as one time measure, for each recruitment, whenever it was considered necessary in the matter. In any event, the provision contained in Rule 12(k) of the General Rules prescribing the maximum age limit of 28 years for recruitment to the Subordinate Services is not applicable to the Police Subordinate Service since there is a specific provision in the Police Subordinate Service Rules prescribing the minimum and maximum age limit for recruitment. On a careful consideration or the material on record, we conclude that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the maximum age limit prescribed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 98, dated 8-2-1991 as a one time measure, or the recruitment during the year 1991. Consequently, such of the applicants who are above 27 years or crossed the maximum age limit as on 1-7-1991 as per G.O.Ms. No. 98, dated 8-2-1991 are not eligible for recruitment to the Police Subordinate Services notified on 22-1-1991. Consequently, all the cases must fail and are liable to be dismissed. Consequently, such of the applicants who are above 27 years or crossed the maximum age limit as on 1-7-1991 as per G.O.Ms. No. 98, dated 8-2-1991 are not eligible for recruitment to the Police Subordinate Services notified on 22-1-1991. Consequently, all the cases must fail and are liable to be dismissed. In the result, all the Original Applications are dismissed and the interim Orders passed in all the said cases are vacated. No costs.'- 18. Similar notification was issued in respect of the direct recruitment S.Is. 1993 wherein the maximum age was fixed at 25 years. O.As. were filed in O.A.No. 3621 of 1993 seeking relaxation by six years as available under general rules. The tribunal held that they are not entitled for relaxation of the age. In 1994, when another recruitment was made, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 474, dated 17-6-1994 enhancing the age limit from 25 to 26 years as one time measure for 1993 S.I. Recruitment. In G.O.Ms.No. 331, dated 22-3-1997, ad hoc rules were framed for Stipend Cadre of S.Is. but they are not relevant for the purpose of recruitment as the Rules which govern the Recruitment to the post of Police Service continued to be governed by G.O.Ms.No. 29, dt. 8-1-1991. 19. While so, the recruitment notification was issued in 1998 on 11-3-1998. Again this time also some batch of O.As. were filed in O.A.No. 2172 of 1998 seeking extension of relaxation of maximum age of 5 years as was extended in the State and Subordinate Services Rules by G.O.Ms.No. 561, dated 11-10-1998. The tribunal granted interim directions to allow the candidates for written test and finally the tribunal by an Order dated 24-1-1998 (sic.) in a batch of O.As. struck down clause 3(a) of the Advertisement dated 11-3-1998 and also the provision in the Ad hoc Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No. 561, dated 11-10-1988 to the extent it restricts the upper age in case of unemployed O.C. candidates to 25 years. It is also on record that in respect of the very same 1998 Recruitment, apart from the orders in the impugned batch, some more O.As. were also filed seeking same relief in O.A.No.2172 of 1998 and Batch and the tribunal refused to grant the relief by an Order dated 24-3-1998 in O.A.Nos. 2470 of 1998 and 2639 of 1998. Similarly, in O.A.No. 2748 of 1998, the tribunal by an Order dated 24-3-1998 dismissed the O.As. were also filed seeking same relief in O.A.No.2172 of 1998 and Batch and the tribunal refused to grant the relief by an Order dated 24-3-1998 in O.A.Nos. 2470 of 1998 and 2639 of 1998. Similarly, in O.A.No. 2748 of 1998, the tribunal by an Order dated 24-3-1998 dismissed the O.As. So also in O.A.No. 3196 of 1998, dated 5-5-1998, the relief was rejected. 20. It is also on record that subsequently recruitments were made to the post of S.Is. in 2001 wherein the maximum age limit was fixed at 25 years and when the relaxation was sought, they were dismissed by tribunal in O.A.No.9036 of 2002 and batch dated 8-7-2002. The said Orders of the tribunal came to be challenged by the unsuccessful before the High Court in W.P.No. 14042 of 2002 & Batch and this Court by an Order dated 28-4-2003 dismissed the Writ Petitions and upheld the Order of the tribunal. 21. In the wake of the above scenario, it has to be considered whether the Order passed by the tribunal directing the grant of relaxation to O.C. candidates to the post of S.Is. by direct recruitment, is liable to be interfered with. 22. The sequence of events as narrated above would clearly indicate that the State and Subordinate Services Rules are made applicable to all the direct recruitment posts to the extent indicated in the rules. By virtue of Rule 1(d) of the State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996 if the provisions of these Rules are repugnant to the specified rules applicable to any service, to the extent of repugnancy the special rules will prevail. Indisputably Special Rules have been framed for Police Subordinate Service as referred to above. Thus, however, the said provisions are not made applicable to the A.P. Police Service whenever the Government has been increasing the maximum age in General Rules, it was being specifically made clear in the notifications concerned with the relaxation of age that it does not apply to the posts in the executive nature in Police, Excise, Forest and Fire Service Departments. Even the Special Rules for the Police Subordinate Service, the age is being fixed and prescribed only from 21 to 25, except on two occasions, where it was increased by one year or so on the ground that there was delay in making the recruitment. 23. Even the Special Rules for the Police Subordinate Service, the age is being fixed and prescribed only from 21 to 25, except on two occasions, where it was increased by one year or so on the ground that there was delay in making the recruitment. 23. The tribunal mainly relying on the earlier Order passed by the tribunal in R.P.No.2599 of 1987 allowed the O.A. But, it has to be noted that the judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. The matter related to the recruitment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Notification was issued in 1983. The age relaxation was claimed on the basis of the G.O.Ms.No.354, dated 30-6-1983 for additional 6 years over and above the maximum age fixed. The tribunal struck down the words 'other than the posts of executive nature in the Police, Excise, Forest and Fire Service Departments for which physical standards have been fixed.'- The Government preferred a Special Leave Petition and it was withdrawn. Further, after striking down, the Government again issued G.O.Ms.No.561, dated 11-10-1988 making ad hoc rules raising the age limit in general by six years for the purpose of direct recruitment, other than the posts of executive nature in the Police, Excise, Forest and Fire Service Departments. But, the said G.O. was not challenged. Even those rules are applicable only to the posts other than those which were excluded. The circumstances under which the Special Leave Petition came to be withdrawn by the Government are not before this Court. In any event, the Order passed by the tribunal cannot be said to be a precedent or having binding nature before this Court. As already observed, only one candidate in the Deputy Superintendent of Police recruitment came to be within the age limit by virtue of the Orders passed by the tribunal. 24. But, here, the larger question that calls for consideration is whether the relaxation of age can be claimed as of right- 25. The recruitment has to be in conformity with the Special Rules for the Police Subordinate Service and General Rules are not made applicable. Further, when special rules have been prescribed in the Police Department, the general rules framed in the Police and Subordinate Service cannot be made applicable. The recruitment has to be in conformity with the Special Rules for the Police Subordinate Service and General Rules are not made applicable. Further, when special rules have been prescribed in the Police Department, the general rules framed in the Police and Subordinate Service cannot be made applicable. Even otherwise also, whenever the age relaxation is given in respect of the other candidates such relaxation was not made applicable in posts of executive in Police, Excise, Forest and Fire Service Departments, for which the physical standards have been prescribed. 26. Fixing the age is the prerogative of the Government keeping in view the constitutional mandate. Though the upper age has been prescribed as 25, but the relaxation was made in respect of the S.C. S.T. B.C. and other categories including in-service police personnel. Whenever, the age is relaxed by the Government, in respect of the posts to be filled up by the direct recruitment under the A.P. State and Subordinate Services Rules, can it be said that it also applied to the police service. In order to get out of the provisions of the General Rules, Special Rules have been framed by the police department for recruitment to various posts keeping in view the nature of the duties performed by the police force, the rules as prescribed in the special rules have to be followed and the special rules will prevail over the general rules. Even under Rule 12 (k) of Pre-1996 General Rules, the upper age limit prescribed in the general rules was not made applicable to the A.P. Police State and Subordinate Service and Special Armed Service Rules. In 1996 General Rules the Special Rules were given overriding effect in case of conflict. Prescribing the age limits is the function of the Government and they cannot be said to be justiciable. It is for the recruitment authorities to fix the age and not for the Courts to decide the reasonableness of the age fixed by the authorities unless such fixation of age is arbitrary offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is for the recruitment authorities to fix the age and not for the Courts to decide the reasonableness of the age fixed by the authorities unless such fixation of age is arbitrary offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Government advisedly did not make applicable the relaxation of age in respect of the posts in the police force and other similarly situated departments, where the physical standards have been prescribed and going into the validity of such age fixation cannot be said to be within the purview of the tribunal or the Courts exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India. 27. Under those circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Order of the tribunal striking down clause 3(a) of the notification and also the relevant rules is not sustainable.