Permod Kohli, Judge (Oral) 1. Petitioner applied for Combined Competitive Examination pursuant to notification-dated 20.2.2002 issued by Public Service Commission for preliminary examination. She was issued admit card and allowed to appear in the preliminary examination which was held in September 2002. Petitioner successfully qualified preliminary exam as notified vide notification dated 13.11.2002 issued by the Public Service Commission. On being declared successful she was issued admit card for the main examination for which she applied. After issuing the admit card for the main examination the petitioner was served with the communication dated 8.12.2003 through fax informing her that her candidature for the main examination stands cancelled as she was found under age by one year five months and fourteen days as on the cut of date. It is the communication which is assailed in this present petition. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that after having allowed to participate in the selection process and clearing the preliminary test and issuing admit card for the main examination, respondents are not entitled to cancel her candidature. On being put to notice respondent Public Service Commission has filed its objections stating therein that though the petitioner was allowed to appear in the preliminary examination. However, on examination it was found that she was ineligible being under age as on the cut of date and accordingly the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled. It is further stated that age of the eligible candidates is prescribed under Rule 5(ii) of SRO 161 and the petitioner being in eligible in terms of the said SRO is not entitled to be allowed to appear in the main examination. Respondents have further stated that petitioner has not qualified the Combined Competitive Examination (main) in terms of Rule 8 of SRO 161 of as she has fallen short of criteria fixed by the commission that is 25% marks in compulsory papers and 30% marks in optional papers for open merit category candidates. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Mohd. Shafi Matoo v. State and Others reported in KLJ 2003, 174. In this case the writ petitioner was to appointed as Peon and due to non-availability of post adjusted as Laboratory Bearer, where he was retained for a period of twenty four years. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Mohd. Shafi Matoo v. State and Others reported in KLJ 2003, 174. In this case the writ petitioner was to appointed as Peon and due to non-availability of post adjusted as Laboratory Bearer, where he was retained for a period of twenty four years. Keeping in view the length of service, it was directed that he may be regularized against the post. This case has no bearing on the facts of the present case and the controversy involved. 4. Another judgment relied upon is Shri Krishan v. Kurukshet a reported in AIR 1976 SC page 377. In the case before the Apex Court, a candidate undergoing L.L.B course as a part time student was entitled to appear in the next examination subject to certain conditions as prescribed in the University statutes. One of the condition was that he has attended regular course for the prescribed number of academic years. A certificate was required to be issued by the Principal of the College/ Head of the Department concerned. However, University had right to cancel the certificate before the examination if the candidate fails to attend the prescribed course of lectures before the end of the term. The college authority issued certificate to the candidate on the basis of which he participated in the examination. However, thereafter, the certificate was withdrawn due to deficiency in attendance of the requisite lectures. It was under these circumstances, the Apex Court observed as under: "...The last part of this statute clearly shows that the University could withdraw the certificate if the applicant has failed to attend the prescribed course of lectures. But this could be done only before the examination. It is, therefore, manifest that once the appellant was allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the applicant cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the applicant permission to appear." 5. The judgment of the Apex Court also cannot be put to aid by the petitioner for seeking the relief as in the above case there was a clear rule that the certificate could be withdrawn before the commencement of the examination which was not done. The judgment of the Apex Court also cannot be put to aid by the petitioner for seeking the relief as in the above case there was a clear rule that the certificate could be withdrawn before the commencement of the examination which was not done. In the present case, the rule prescribed the age for applying for the examination. If due to some error an ineligible person has been allowed to participate in the examination it does not attract the principle of estopple, particularly when the doctrine is sought to be pleaded against the statute. 6. In another case reported in AIR 1995 SC 277 titled Smt. Ravinder Sharma v. State of Punjab, the petitioner therein was selected in the year 1967 for the post of clerk in Punjab Public Service Commission for which prescribed qualification was matriculate with first class and the petitioner was matriculate with third class. He was later on confirmed on being selected by SSB and also promoted to the next higher post taken in the year 1974. When ineligibility of the petitioner came to be noticed, his case was recommended to the Government for relaxation under the relevant regulations. However, the government declined to relax the qualification. Accordingly, the employee was put to notice for his termination. He preferred the writ petition before the High Court which came to be dismissed on the ground that he lack requisite qualification at the time of selection. The appeal was preferred before the Apex Court in which following observations were made: "The appellant No. Smt. Ravinder Sharma was appointed as a clerk in the Punjab Public Service Commission (Hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") through Employment Exchange on 8.6.1967. At that time, she possessed the educational qualification as Matriculate III Class while the rule required Matriculate I class. Later on, she qualified from the Subordinate Service Selection Board and was appointed as a clerk on regular basis on 28.8.1968. She was promoted as Assistant on 1.2.1974." Ratio of this judgment is fully applicable to the present case. Admittedly, petitioner was ineligible as on the cut of date she cannot be allowed to participate in the final selection. There is no violation of any of her rights nor doctrine of Equitable Estopple can be pressed into service contrary to law. 7. In view of the above, this petition deserves to be dismissed and I order accordingly.