Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a Diploma Holder in Civil Engineering. He passed Diploma in Civil Engineering in April 1989. He registered his name in the District Employment Exchange, Tiruvannamalai on 31.05.1989. While he belongs to one Bandi community, which is classified by the Government of Tamil Nadu as Scheduled Caste, he was issued a community certificate classifying him as Most Backward Community, as if he belongs to Oddar community. He, therefore, made many representations to the second respondent – District Collector. Ultimately, he was issued Scheduled Caste community certificate on 17.04.2010. Hence, he was not considered under Scheduled Caste category prior to 17.04.2010, when he was called for interview during 2006 and when he was called to attend the written test during 2008 for the post of Overseer and he was not selected. Had he been considered under Scheduled Caste category, he could have been selected. 2. While so, the Government issued an order in G.O.(Ms) No.69, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (CGS.1) Department, dated 15.06.2010 sanctioning 618 vacancies of Overseer in all over Tamil Nadu. Out of 618 vacancies, 36 were earmarked for Tiruvannamalai District. Out of 36 vacancies, 8 were reserved for persons belonging to Scheduled Caste. The name of the petitioner was not sponsored by the Employment Officer, the third respondent herein, for the post of Overseer, as he crossed 40 years. 3. The Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Engineering Subordinate Service Rules provides that no person above 40 years is eligible for appointment to the post of Overseer. 4. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the second respondent to allow him to attend the necessary test and interview for the post of Overseer, by relaxing the age limit, that is required under Rule 4 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Engineering Subordinate Service Rules. 5. Notice of motion was ordered on 02.07.2010. The respondents filed counter affidavit. 6. The respondents state that Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Engineering Subordinate Service Rules prescribes the qualification as to age. As per the said rule, candidates who have completed the age of 35 years, shall not be eligible for appointment to the post of Overseer. The Special Rules were framed in G.O.(Ms) No.70, Rural Development Department, dated 20.03.2000. The respondents state that Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Engineering Subordinate Service Rules prescribes the qualification as to age. As per the said rule, candidates who have completed the age of 35 years, shall not be eligible for appointment to the post of Overseer. The Special Rules were framed in G.O.(Ms) No.70, Rural Development Department, dated 20.03.2000. Later, an amendment was made to Rule 4(a) vide G.O.(Ms) No.41, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 21.03.2007, wherein benefit of Rule 12(d) of the General Rules was taken away. In view of the same, for all categories of candidates, the upper age limit prescribed under the Special Rules was 35. The same was questioned by some persons in W.P.No.3950 of 2008 and this Court upheld Rule 4(a) vide order dated 17.11.2008. Hence, the petitioner could not seek relaxation in his case. 7. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Engineering Subordinate Service Rules as per G.O.(Ms) No.70, Rural Development Department, dated 20.03.2000, is as follows: "4. Qualification (a) Age: No person shall be eligible for appointment for the posts of Overseer or Road Inspector by direct recruitment, if he has completed the age of 35 years on the first day of July of the year in which the selection for appointment to the posts are made." Hence, the Rule provides for 35 years of age for all categories of candidates. 9. Later, Rule 4(a) was amended vide G.O.(Ms) No.41, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 21.03.2007. After amendment, Rule 4(a) reads as follows: "Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 12(d) of the General Rules, no person shall be eligible for appointment for the posts of Overseer or Road Inspector by direct recruitment, if he has completed the age of 35 years on the first day of July of the year in which the selection for appointment to the posts are made." That is, the effect of amendment of Rule 4(a) by G.O.(Ms)No.41, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 21.03.2007 is that the benefit of Rule 12(d) of the General Rules was taken away. 10. The Government issued an order in G.O.(Ms) No.98, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, dated 17.07.2006 granting five years relaxation in the matter of upper age limit due to lifting of ban for recruitment. 10. The Government issued an order in G.O.(Ms) No.98, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, dated 17.07.2006 granting five years relaxation in the matter of upper age limit due to lifting of ban for recruitment. Hence, for all categories of candidates for the post of Overseer, the upper age limit is 40 years. 11. The amended Rule 4(a) was also upheld by this Court. Under such circumstances, the respondents state that they were not prepared to relax the qualification with respect to age, as the Special Rules contemplates the same age for all categories of candidates. 12. The petitioner seeks relaxation only on the ground that he was issued Scheduled Caste community certificate in April 2010 and that therefore, he is entitled to relaxation. But the Government was not willing to grant relaxation on that score. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Rule 4(a) itself is invalid as it was opposed to the constitutional scheme, wherein concession relating to age has to be provided to Scheduled Caste candidates. That is, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge Rule 4(a) for not granting concession in the case of Scheduled Caste candidates. 13. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed. I do not find any infirmity in refusing to relax the age in the case of one person. It could have been a different matter, had he challenged the Rule itself for not providing concession to Scheduled Caste claiming his right under Constitution. But, he did not choose to do so. Therefore, I am not going into the validity of the Rules. The earlier order of this Court referred to above by the respondents could not come in the way of the petitioner challenging the validity of the Rules, as far as Scheduled Caste are concerned, based on the constitutional provisions. But he did not choose to challenge the same. However, he asked for only individual relaxation, which was declined by the Government. I do not find any infirmity in the stand taken by the Government. Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.