JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Ms.Reetika Chauhan in person. 2. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered necessary to issue formal notice. 3. The petitioner has pleaded that she had responded to the advertisement dated 22.7.2011 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Commission') for recruitment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service. She offered her candidature, and was thereafter, permitted to participate in the preliminary as well as main written examinations. In the application, that she submitted seeking participation in the process, she did inter alia disclose her date of birth to be 24.6.1989. The Commission issued admit card to her and the petitioner was declared successively to have passed the preliminary and the main examinations. According to her therefore, as per the scheme of the selection process, she was entitled to be called for the interview. The respondent-Commission however, by its letter dated 28.6.2013, informed her that she had been declared provisionally successful to appear for Personality & Viva-voce Test on 7.8.2013 at 1:30 p.m. Subsequent thereto, by its letter dated 17.7.2013, the Commission however, informed the petitioner that during the scrutiny of her application form and the documents submitted by her, she has been adjudged to be ineligible to appear in the interview, since she had completed 22 years 6 months & 7 days only as on 1.1.2012. In this factual backdrop, the petitioner is before this Court seeking redress. 4. The petitioner has argued that though in terms of the advertisement initiating the selection process, a candidate to be eligible to participate in it, was to be of the age of 23 years and above as on 1.1.2012, but within 35 years, she having been permitted to take the preliminary and main examinations, presumably on thorough scrutiny of her testimonials, the respondent-Commission is now debarred in law in adjudging her to be ineligible to appear in Personality & Viva-voce Test. She has urged further that as the respondent-Commission did consciously permit her to participate albeit provisionally in the Personality & Viva-voce Test on 7.8.2013, as indicated by its letter dated 28.6.2013, it is estopped from denying her the said opportunity, without any justification whatsoever, and thus, an appropriate writ and/or direction or order ought to be issued to remedy her grievance. 5. 5. In terms of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (as amended upto 2012) (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the process of recruitment to the Rajasthan Judicial Service, as involved herein, has two broad segments, namely, written examination followed by interview of the successful candidates. Both these processes of evaluation of the candidates constitute the selection process as a whole and cannot be segregated. The process of selection thus, gets completed only after the interview is conducted and the candidates are selected on the basis of their overall performance for recruitment. 6. Having regard to the date of birth of the petitioner i.e.24.6.1989, she, in terms of the stipulation of age, as mentioned in the advertisement, was clearly ineligible to participate in the process. This condition of eligibility qua the age of a candidate, as contemplated by the advertisement, had been publicly proclaimed and is intended to have uniform application without any exception. All the candidates, otherwise eligible, did act on this norm and no departure therefrom is contemplated, if fairness and transparency in the public participatory process involved has to be maintained to generate public confidence in it. The mere fact that the petitioner had been allowed to sit in the preliminary as well as main examination though, she was admittedly overaged in terms of the aforementioned criterion of age does not, in our view, vest her with any inviolable right to claim participation in Personality & Viva-voce Test. Even assuming that the respondent-Commission had erred in allowing her to appear in the preliminary and main examinations, which she had passed, having regard to the criterion of age as prescribed and she being admittedly overaged in terms thereof, the relief sought for cannot be granted. In the exercise of power of judicial review, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the prayer as made cannot be acceded to. 7. The petition therefore, lacks in merit and is rejected. The stay application also stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******