JUDGMENT 1. - Application form of the appellant for the post of Probationary 1 Officer-cum-Social Welfare Officer was rejected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'RPSC') on the ground that the appellant was over-age. The appellant assailed the decision of RPSC by filing writ petition before the Single Judge which was dismissed on March 5, 1997. Hence this appeal. 2. Contextual facts depict that the appellant, belonging to Other Backward Class, applied for the post of Probationary Officer-cum-Social Welfare Officer for which maximum age limit prescribed in the advertisement was 30 years. The appellant (born on December 8, 1965) was admittedly to more than 30 years on January 1, 1997 and he was over-age by 1 year and 24 days. As per the advertisement the last date for submission of application form was July 30, 1996. 3. It was contended on behalf of the appellant before learned Single Judge that notification dated November 13, 1996 whereby relaxation of two years to OBC candidate was provided, could not have been ignored by the RPSC. This argument did not find favour and writ petition was rejected. Learned Single Judge held that the relaxation could not be claimed by the appellant since the amendment came at a later stage and was not in existence on the date of making the application. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced before us. 5. It is well settled that the candidate must be qualified in all respect as on the last date for making application for the post in advertisement. The is eligibility/qualification acquired by the candidate after the last date should not be taken into consideration as that would be arbitrary and resulted in discrimination. The appellant was admittedly overage on the last date of submission of application and was not eligible for consideration, but contrary to the conditions laid down in advertisement the appellant submitted application form which was invalid and could not be validated by the subsequent amendment. The appellant was not entitled to benefit of relaxation since large number of similarly situated candidates did not apply for the said post in view of the fact that they had crossed the age limit of years. We do not see any infirmity in the order of learned Single Judge. 6. In Dr. The appellant was not entitled to benefit of relaxation since large number of similarly situated candidates did not apply for the said post in view of the fact that they had crossed the age limit of years. We do not see any infirmity in the order of learned Single Judge. 6. In Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan, Judgments Today 1997 (6) SC 72 the Apex observed that cut off date cannot be considered unreasonable or capricious and such a uniform date is less prone to vagaries and less uncertain and held that reasonableness or unreasonableness of the rule cannot be decided by looking at borderline case and power of relaxation of age is to be exercised in public interest in a given case and there cannot be a whole sale relaxation. Validity of cut off date was upheld. 7. For these reasons, we find no merit in the instant appeal, it accordingly stands dismissed without any order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed-Judgment of Single Judge Affirmed. *******