Judgment The petitioner, a graduate in law and borne in the ministerial cadre of the establishment of the District Judge, Puri seeks to challenge the validity of Rule 18(2)(c) of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 2007), as amended by the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Judicial Service (Amendment) Rules, 2010 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the Amended Rules, 2010”). We have heard Mr. T. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Addl.Standing Counsel for the State-opposite party. The facts in bare minimum are that in terms of Rules 18 (1)(b) of the Rules, 2007 the age limits for the recruitment to the service of Civil Judge were fixed as “not below 21 years of age and not above 32 years of age on the 1st day of the month of August of the year in which applications are invited”. However, the maximum age limit was relaxable by 5 years for reserved category candidates as well as women and Physically Handicapped candidates. The upper age limit of the departmental candidates, having not less than 7 years of service in the High Court, Civil or Criminal Court sub-ordinate to High Court and in the Law Department, was fixed at 39 years. With the amendment of the Rules i.e. the Amended Rules, 2010, as mentioned hereinabove, the minimum age limit was enhanced from 21 to 23 years and the upper age limit from 32 to 35 years and in addition to that 5 years relaxation in upper age limit in respect of SC, ST, SEBC, Women and Physically Handicapped candidates as mentioned therein was also prescribed. However, no such age relaxation was provided to the departmental candidates. It was thereafter that by an advertisement No. 08 of 2010-11, a process for recruitment for 49 posts of Civil Judge in the Orissa Judicial Service was initiated. Whereas, the benefit of upper age limit as per the amendment Rules, 2010 for reserved category candidates from open market was accorded up to 40 years, the maximum age limit in respect of departmental candidate was pegged at 39 years. Whereas, the benefit of upper age limit as per the amendment Rules, 2010 for reserved category candidates from open market was accorded up to 40 years, the maximum age limit in respect of departmental candidate was pegged at 39 years. As evident from Clause 5 of the advertisement, a departmental /in service candidate, as contemplated therein, to be eligible was to be a Graduate in Law of a University or Institution recognized by the Government with approved service in the High Court or in any Civil or Criminal Court sub-ordinate to the High Court or in the Law Department of not less than seven years by the last date fixed for receipt of applications for the competitive examination contemplated. The grievance of the petitioner, who is a Scheduled Caste candidate, is that whereas the persons similarly situated like him and of the same community from the open market would enjoy the benefit of relaxation of 5 years of upper age limit i.e. up to 40 years, in view of ceiling of upper age limit of 39 years in respect departmental candidate, he would be denied equality in treatment. Rule 18(2)(c) of the Rules, 2007 has thus been assailed to be unconstitutional, null & void. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts and the scheme of the Rules, we are disinclined to sustain the challenge. As it is, an in service/departmental candidate, in view of the requirement of 7 years of approved service, has been provided relaxation of upper age limit up to 39 years i.e. 4 years in excess of a general open category candidate. To reiterate, whereas, the upper age limit of a general open category candidate is 35 years, it is 39 years for a departmental candidate. True it is that with relaxation of 5 years in upper age limit for reserved category candidates, the ceiling of the upper age limit for them would be 40 years, however, in our comprehension, having regard to the fact that the open category candidates and in house candidates belong to two distinctly different streams, the parity in upper age limit as insisted upon by the petitioner, if not maintained, would not per se render the Rule 18(2)(c) of the Rules, 2007 discriminatory and null & void. A conscious classification has been made by the Rule makers between these two categories of candidates and the plea of discrimination sought to be projected by the petitioner to demonstrate unfairness and unreasonableness and inequality does not commend any acceptance to annul the aforementioned provision of the Rules. As it is, the in service departmental candidates, who constitute a separate class, enjoy the benefit of extra four years of age in the context of upper ceiling prescribed by the Rules for general category candidates for the prescription of such years of service. The classification is thus based on intelligible criteria. We are thus of the view that the challenge is without of any merit and the petition is thus rejected.