JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the advertisement No. 10 of 2008-09 (Annex.-1) published by the. Special Secretary, Orissa Public Service Commission inviting-application for Orissa Judicial Service Examination-2009 to fill up the posts of Civil Judges under Law Department by direct recruitment, on the ground that it has fixed the maximum age of 32 years for General Category, which is unreasonable and seeking following directions: (i) To direct the writ of mandamus to the Opp. Parties particularly to the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 to amend the advertisement para 4 of the advertisement as maximum-35 years of age instead of 32 years of age as provided by the other States in India; (ii) To direct the Opposite Parties to follow up strictly ORV Post & service (SC/ST) Act, 1975. (iii) To direct the Opposite Parties for providing 10 years age relaxation to the P.H. Category candidates as provided by the other States. (iv) To direct the Opposite Parties particularly to the Opposite Party No. 2, for extension of last date of submission of application for this post. (v) To direct the Opposite Parties for invitation of applications for the post in future from the candidates between age group of 23 to 35 in future/subsequent year. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that Orissa Public Service Commission has issued the aforesaid advertisement inviting applications from the eligible candidates for filling up 77 posts of Civil Judges in Orissa Judicial Service under Law Department by direct recruitment. Along with other eligibility criteria, the age limits has been prescribed that a candidate must not be below 21 years of age and not above 32 years of age as on the 1st August, 2009. However, the upper age limit prescribed above will be relaxable (i) up to a maximum five years for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, or a Woman, or an Orthopedically Handicapped, (ii) up to a maximum three years for the candidates belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Classes. But the Petitioner, who is admittedly aged about 33 years challenges the aforesaid advertisement on the ground that it makes the Petitioner ineligible for appearing in the examination in fixing the maximum age of 32 years for General Category. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. But the Petitioner, who is admittedly aged about 33 years challenges the aforesaid advertisement on the ground that it makes the Petitioner ineligible for appearing in the examination in fixing the maximum age of 32 years for General Category. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. Kanungo, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that fixing the maximum age of 32 years for the post of Civil Judge is arbitrary and unreasonable and the maximum age should not be less than 35 years as it had been provided earlier in the State of Orissa for the self same examination and in most of the other States also the maximum age has been provided as 35 years. He submitted that Petitioner is fulfilling all other eligibility criteria except the criteria for age. Therefore, the Clause-4 of the advertisement providing age limits is liable to be struck down and new age limit should be prescribed. 4. Mr. P. Panda, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel opposed the petition contending that the maximum age for this examination remains 32 years. No doubt it is true that in specific cases, like last advertisement in 2008, considering some representations on the issue, the Government had extended the maximum age limit from 32 years to 35 years in consultation with the Hon'ble High Court for that year only in view of the fact that for last several years the post was not advertised. But so far as present advertisement is concerned there is no need to extend the age limit as the last examination was held in the year 2008 and as the Government has decided to make the advertisement every year according to the vacancies as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the age of 32 years has rightly been prescribed in the advertisement and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. It has further been submitted by Mr. Panda, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel that fixing the eligibility falls within the domain of the legislature and it is beyond the competence of the Court to have a judicial review thereof. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. 5. It has further been submitted by Mr. Panda, Learned Addl. Standing Counsel that fixing the eligibility falls within the domain of the legislature and it is beyond the competence of the Court to have a judicial review thereof. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Admittedly, fixing eligibility falls within the exclusive domain of the legislature and cannot be a subject matter of judicial review unless found to be arbitrary, unreasonable or has been fixed/prescribed without keeping in mind the nature of services for which the appointments are to be made or it has no rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Statute. It is always permissible for the Government to prescribe appropriate qualifications/eligibility in the matter of appointments/promotions to different posts. Even if a person joins the service, he merely acquires a status and the rights and obligations thereto are not to be determined by the consent of the parties but by the Statute or statutory Rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government. Vide State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Shiv Ram Sharma and Others, . 8. In Praveen Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, the Apex Court held that in the matter of employment, i.e., selection and appointment, the authority concerned has unfettered power in procedural aspect. The Courts should not interfere unless the appointments so made are found to have been made "at the cost of fair play, good conscience and equity." 9. The eligibility criteria should not be arbitrary or unreasonable and if is found so, it becomes liable to be quashed as it falls within the mischief of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which provides for equality before law and equal protection of law. The scope of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution has been widened by judicial interpretation to mean not only the right to be not discriminated but also protection of any arbitrary or irrational act of the State. Arbitrariness is a anathema of Rule of equality. Vide Pradeep Kumar Biswas and Others Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others, . 10. Arbitrariness is a anathema of Rule of equality. Vide Pradeep Kumar Biswas and Others Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others, . 10. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered opinion that there is no scope of judicial review of the eligibility criteria fixed by the legislature as it cannot be held even by any stretch of imagination that fixing the maximum age of 32 years is unreasonable and arbitrary, particularly taking note of the fact that earlier selections had been held fixing the maximum age of 32 years and last selection was held only in the year 2008. 11. Petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. B. N. Mahapatra, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed