JUDGMENT K.Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are physically handicapped persons. They mainly claim two reliefs. The first relief is that reservation may be provided in the matter of recruitment to the post of Munsiff Magistrate to physically handicapped persons. The second claim is that they are entitled to get age relaxation upto ten years, over and above the age limit prescribed in the notification. The first point raised by them, regarding reservation, is covered against them by the decision of this Court in WP (C) No. 14604 of 2007 dated 12/06/2007. 2. In support of the second claim, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 18117 of 2007 relied on Ext. P4 order of the Government dated 13/05/1964. The said order authorised the Public Service Commission and appointing authorities to include a condition in notifications issued by them, inviting applications for appointment, that physically handicapped persons will get relaxation of age upto ten years, if they are found otherwise suitable and competent to discharge the duties attached to the post. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 18366 of 2007 relied on GO (P) No. 158/73/PD dated 29/05/1973, Ext. P4 in the said writ petition, by which physically handicapped persons are given age relaxation upto ten years. They also rely on the note to clause 4 of the notification issued by this Court dated 15/02/2007, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Munsiff Magistrate. As per the said note, the provisions of R.10 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules regarding relaxation of age limit will apply. On the above grounds the petitioners pray that they may be given age relaxation and the orders rejecting their applications, stating that they are over aged, which are produced as Ext. P2 and P5 respectively in the writ petitions, may be quashed. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent. They brought to my notice the amendment introduced to R.10 of the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991, which was enforced with effect from 31/08/2006. According to the respondents R.10(c) of the said rules specifically provides that age relaxation is applicable only in the case of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe and other backward classes. They would submit that the provisions of the special rules will prevail over the ued in 1973. 4. According to the respondents R.10(c) of the said rules specifically provides that age relaxation is applicable only in the case of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe and other backward classes. They would submit that the provisions of the special rules will prevail over the ued in 1973. 4. R.10(1)(c) of the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, which was introduced in 2006, reads as follows: "(c) He shall not have completed 35 years of age, on the first day of January of the year in which application for appointment are invited: Provided that the provisions in sub-rule (c) of R.10 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, raising the upper age limit in the case of members or the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes shall be applicable to such candidates for appointment to category 2." 5. In answer to the contentions of the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the orders issued in 1964 and 1973 should be taken as supplementing R.10(1)(c) of the Special Rules. 6. In matters like qualifications, age, etc., the provisions contained in the Special Rules will prevail over other rules and orders. Regarding age relaxation, there is a specific provision in the special rules, which covers only Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class candidates. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to get relaxation of age limit' on the strength of the executive orders issued in 1973 cannot be upheld. In the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.