Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—Heard for admission and interim relief. 2. The questions raised in the present writ petition are vital questions of law requiring detailed consideration by this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the amendment effected in Rajasthan Land Revenue (Qualification & Conditions of Services of Chairman and Members of the Board) Rules, 1971 by notification dated 25th January, 2010 in relation to appointments from the category of advocates are illegal and ultra vires. By rule 14 (1-c) of the said Rules after the amendment effected by notification dated 25.1.2010, it is provided that-"A member of the Board appointed under rule 6 from the advocates shall hold office for four years or 60 years of age, whichever is earlier, subject to further extension for two years by the Government on the recommendation of the committee constituted under sub-rule (2) of rule 6." 4. Rule 4(c) has also been amended on 25.1.2010 and for the expression "50 years", the words "54 years" have been substituted; meaning thereby that candidates from Advocate category have to be of minimum 54 years of age on the cut-off date of 1.1.2010. The petitioner, who applied for said position, is around 51 years of age. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said amendments, effected after earlier amendment effect in 2001 vide notification Annx. 2 dated 22.9.2001, are illegal and ultra vires because entry of advocates into said Service has illegally restricted to the advocates having acquired minimum age of 54 years as on 1st January, 2010. He submits that the petitioner is around 51years of age and is otherwise fully eligible to be considered for appointment to said post of Member of Board of Revenue but his application has not been accepted so far by the respondents and the selection process, which is likely to take place now shortly, his candidature is bound to be rejected in view of said amendment vide notification dated 25th January, 2010. 6. On the other hand, Mr. R.L. Jangid, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the age limit of 54 years at the time of entry is applicable for candidates coming from Rajasthan Administrative Services as well as for Advocate category. 6. On the other hand, Mr. R.L. Jangid, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the age limit of 54 years at the time of entry is applicable for candidates coming from Rajasthan Administrative Services as well as for Advocate category. However, there is no such age limit at the time of entry into said service for candidates coming from Indian Administrative Service or Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service under rule 14(1) and 14(1-A) of the said Rules. He, however, submits that the upper age limit and extension for maximum two years is same for all the candidates coming from all the different sources. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Council of Legal Aid & Advise vs. Bar Council of India - AIR 1995 SC 691 in which the rule debarring persons who have completed 45 years of age for entry into the profession. Section 4, 49(1)(ag) & (ah) of the Bar Council of India Rules was struck down by the Apex Court. 8. Learned counsel also submits that the rule prescribing maximum tenure of four years with further extention for two years, for advocates category, has no rational nexus since originally the Rules prescribed any person who is eligible to become a judge of High Court was eligible to become a Member of the Board of Revenue and there is no such age limit as now prescribed for Board Member applicable to High Court judges. Therefore, prospects for advocates' entry into said Service has been illegally curtailed by the respondents, on both side viz. age at the time of entry and maximum tenure restricted to six years, through the device of subordinate legislation. 9. Prima facie, there appears to be no rational nexus behind raising the age limit to 54 years by amendment in rule 4 of the Rules 1971. Equally, the tenure of maximum 6 years including 2 years extension, only for the category of Advocates appears to be without any rationale. The notification, a subordinate legislation does not contain any preamble, objects and reasons for the said amendment. 10. The issues raised in the writ petition require consideration. 11. Hence, Admit, Fresh notices need not be issued as respondents are already served. 12. Heard for interim relief. 13. The notification, a subordinate legislation does not contain any preamble, objects and reasons for the said amendment. 10. The issues raised in the writ petition require consideration. 11. Hence, Admit, Fresh notices need not be issued as respondents are already served. 12. Heard for interim relief. 13. After hearing the learned counsels at some length, this Court is of the view that petitioner's application vide Annx. 5 dated 16.4.2010 for the said post deserve to be provisionally considered. As per said application, petitioner born on 26.8.1951 and having completed 51 years and 4 months as on 1.1.2010 has filed said application. 14. Subject to final decision of this petition, petitioner's application shall be considered by the respondents and result of said selection, as far as petitioner's case is concerned, shall be produced in the sealed cover before this Court on the next date of hearing. 15. In order to maintain parity & to avoid unnecessary flow of litigation, since there may be some more candidates who are below 54 years of age but over 50 years, who are otherwise eligible to apply for the said post, might have applied for the said post; it is directed that all such applications of such similarly situated persons shall also be provisionally considered by the respondent-State and Board of Revenue and their result shall also be produced before this Court in a sealed cover, subject to final decision of this Court. 16. Stay petition is accordingly disposed of. Put up for final hearing on 10th August, 2010.