JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant-petitioner has challenged by way of present intra-court appeal, the order dated 11th May, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3408/2003, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petition. 2. The appellant-petitioner had applied for the post of the Lecturer in s Political Science and other faculties, pursuant to the advertisement dated 20th January, 1997 issued by the respondent-Commission. In the said advertisement, the minimum age prescribed was 33 years as on 1st July, 1997. The examination to be conducted pursuant to the said advertisement, however, was cancelled and four years thereafter another advertisement on 18th June 2001 was issued for filling up the vacancies for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and other faculties. The petitioner had again applied pursuant to the said advertisement and also participated in the pretest examination held on 7.7.2002. However, thereafter, the petitioner was informed by the letter dated 5.4.2003 that his candidature was rejected, as he had become over-aged. The said decision contained in the letter dated 5.4.2003 was challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The said petition having been dismissed by the impugned order, the petitioner has approached this court by way of intra court appeal. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel Mr. Rajendera Soni for the appellant that the petitioner at the time of earlier advertisement dated 20.1.1997 was eligible for the said post and for no fault of his own, the 1 examination was not conducted. The appellant became over aged at the time of second advertisement and therefore his case for relaxation in age was required to be considered. Mr. Soni has relied upon the judgment of the Court in the case of Prakash Chand etc. v. State of Raj. & anr. 1990(2) 5 RLR 1 to contend that since the appellant was eligible to be considered at the time of issuance of first advertisement, his case should be considered for relaxation in age for the purpose of second advertisement. However, the learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. S.N. Kumawat for the respondent has submitted that the appellant having already become over-aged at the time of 10 issuance of advertisement in question, no relaxation in age could be granted in absence of any Rules providing for such relaxation. However, the learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. S.N. Kumawat for the respondent has submitted that the appellant having already become over-aged at the time of 10 issuance of advertisement in question, no relaxation in age could be granted in absence of any Rules providing for such relaxation. He also submitted that there being no illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. At the outset, it is required to be mentioned that admittedly the is appellant was not eligible for applying for the post in question pursuant to the advertisement dated 1.6.2001, he having become over-aged. Admittedly, there are no Rules empowering the respondent-authority to grant relaxation in age. It is also pertinent to note that the advertisement in question related to the year 2001 and the entire process of selection had already been completed 20 long back. Moreover, there was no interim order operating in favour of the appellant and under the circumstances the learned Single Judge had rightly not entertained the petition of the appellant. 5. Though reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the decision of this court in the case of Prakash Chand (supra), 25 the learned AAG Mr. Kumawat has relied upon the unreported decision of this court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 923/2006 wherein the Division Bench, after considering the said decision in the case of Prakash Chand and following the unreported judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Smt. Anand Kanwar & others delivered on 8.2.1995 in D.B. Civil Appeal No. 52/1993 , had dismissed the appeal upholding that no age relaxation could be granted in absence of any provision in the Rules. The relevant observations made in the case of Anand Kanwar (supra) are reproduced as under: "It is settled proposition of law that the eligibility of a candidate has to be 35 determined on the basis of the terms and conditions of the advertisement in response to which the candidate applies. There is nothing on the record to show that the State Government was in any manner negligent or at fault in not making the direct recruitment during the period 1983-89. There is nothing on the record to show that the State Government was in any manner negligent or at fault in not making the direct recruitment during the period 1983-89. Be that as it may, the High Court was not justified in taking the clock back 40 to the period when unfilled vacancies were existing and and holding that since the respondent was eligible on the date when vacancies fell vacant. She continues to be so till the time the vacancies are filled. Due to inaction on the part of the State Government is not filling the posts year-wise, the respondent cannot get a right to participate in the 45 selection despite being over-aged." 6. In view of the above, this court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and hence the present appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******