JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 3.9.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition filed by the appellants whereby the claim of the appellants for benefit of age relaxation for the purpose of consideration of their candidatures for recruitment on the post of Junior Marketing Officer in the Agriculture Marketing Department against the vacancies advertised vide advertisement dated 28.2.2008 has been dismissed. 2. The appellants, who are working as L.D.Cs. in the Agricultural Marketing Department, applied for recruitment on the post of Junior Marketing Officer in pursuance of advertisement dated 28.2.2008 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer. However, their candidatures have been rejected while treating them over age because all the appellants have crossed maximum age of 40 years prescribed for in service candidates in the Rajasthan Subordinate Service (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules of 2001'). 3. In the writ petition, the appellants have claimed that as the vacancies for the post of Junior Marketing Officer have been advertised only in the year 2008 after 1995-96, they are entitled for relaxation in maximum age limit equal to the period when the vacancies have not been advertised. It is contended in the writ petition that as the State Government has failed to determine the vacancies of the Junior Marketing Officer every year and has also failed to conduct recruitment on the post of Junior Marketing Officer every year, the State Government should exercise jurisdiction vested in it under Rule 49 of the Rules of 2001 and should have provided benefits of age relaxation in the maximum age equal to the period the vacancies have not been advertised. 4. The claim of the appellants is rejected by learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the matters involving similar controversy. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment while reiterating the arguments raised before the learned Single Judge to the effect that when the State Government has failed to determine the vacancies every year and has failed to conduct recruitment on the post of Junior Marketing Officers every year, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of age relaxation in the maximum age equal to the period when the vacancies have not been advertised. 6. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment as well as the material placed on record. 7. After thoughtful consideration, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in dismissing the writ petition while placing reliance on the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench in Prem Ratan Modi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (reported in 2013(1) WLC (Raj.) 39) involving similar question. It is noticed that the coordinate Bench in Prem Ratan Modi's case (supra) has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.52/1993 - Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Smt. Anand Kanwar decided on February 8, 1995 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "We are of the view that the high court fell into patent error bordering on perversity in issuing the mandamus on the reasoning quoted above. It is settled proposition of law that the eligibility of a candidate has to be determined on the basis of 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 direct recruitment during the year 1983-89. Be that as it may the High Court was not justified in taking clock back to the period when unfilled vacancies were existing and holding that since the respondent was eligible on the date when vacancies fell vacant, she continued to be so till the time vacancies are filled. Due to inaction on the part of State Government in not filling the posts years wise, the respondent cannot get a right to participate in the selection despite being over age." 8. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the appellants have already crossed the maximum age prescribed for in service candidates in rule 2001 when the advertisement for recruitment on the post of Junior Marketing Officer was issued in the year 2008. Therefore, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in RPSC v. Smt. Anand Kanwar (supra) they cannot claim age relaxation in maximum age only on the ground that State Government has failed to determine the vacancies year wise or failed to conduct recruitment every year. 9. Therefore, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in RPSC v. Smt. Anand Kanwar (supra) they cannot claim age relaxation in maximum age only on the ground that State Government has failed to determine the vacancies year wise or failed to conduct recruitment every year. 9. In such circumstances we are not persuaded to take a different view as has been taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence, there is no force in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed.Stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******