ORDER : Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J. 1. Mr. Rudramurthy-the petitioner herein, has challenged the legality of the order dated 28-7-2016, passed by the Appellate Authority and the Principal Secretary to Government (Primary and Secondary) Education Department, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru, where by the learned Appellate Authority has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that respondent no.6 is a Private Education Institution, under the name of "Beeralingeshwara Vidya Samsthe", and is running a High School under the name of Beeralingeshwara High School, it is an Educational Institution which is covered under the Grant-in-Aid. Thus, the school is covered under the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Private Aided Primary and High School Educational Institutions Service Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1991. 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner had acquired qualifications of SSLC, PUC, BA and B.Ed., on 1-6-2008, he was appointed as a temporary Assistant Master in Arts for teaching Social Science subject in the school. During his service career, he had also acquired the qualifications for being appointed as Assistant Master in Arts in terms of the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instruction) (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2002. 4. By advertisement dated 21-7-2015, the sixth respondent no.6 had invited applications for the post of Assistant Master in Social Science subject for a single vacancy. The vacancy was reserved for General Category-Women. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said advertisement, and was hopeful that he would be appointed to the said post, he filed a revision petition before the learned Appellate Authority. However, by the impugned order dated 28-7-2016, the learned Appellate Authority has dismissed the revision petition. Hence, this petition before this Court. 5. Mr. M.S. Bhagwath, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions: firstly that according to Rule 4 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules, 1999 ("the Rules of 1999" for short), the age limit prescribed for an employee working in a private aided education institution is the same as prescribed for the corresponding posts in Government Educational Institutions. Therefore, in order to see the age limit for the corresponding posts of the Government Educational Institutions, one would I have to turn to Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (the Rules of 1977' for short). Therefore, in order to see the age limit for the corresponding posts of the Government Educational Institutions, one would I have to turn to Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (the Rules of 1977' for short). Rule 6 of the Rules of 1977 provides certain relaxations under Rule 6(3) of the said Rules. Therefore, the same relaxation has to be extended to the petitioner as well. Secondly, amendments have also been introduced in 2002 in the Karnataka Education Department Services (Department of Public Instruction) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 ('the Rules of 1967' for short). According to the amendment, the age limit for a person working in the Government High School shall be enhanced by the number of years during which he is or was holding such post, subject to a maximum of ten years. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the age limit, even for the petitioner, should be taken as enhanced by ten years. Hence, the learned Tribunal was unjustified in rejecting his revision petition on the ground that he is over-aged for the post of Assistant Master. Thirdly, relying on the case of State of Karnataka and Others v. K. Govindappa and Another (2009)1 SCC 1 , the learned Counsel has pleaded that for a single post there cannot be any reservation. Therefore, the single post of Assistant Master cannot be reserved for General Category-Women. Hence, the learned Appellate Authority was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's revision petition. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with by this Court. 6. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the impugned order. 7. The relevant extract of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1977 reads as under: "6. Age limit for appointment. -(1) Save as otherwise provided in the rules of recruitment specially made and applicable to any service or post prescribing higher age limit, every candidate for appointment by direct recruitment must have attained the age of eighteen years and not attained the age of. Age limit for appointment. -(1) Save as otherwise provided in the rules of recruitment specially made and applicable to any service or post prescribing higher age limit, every candidate for appointment by direct recruitment must have attained the age of eighteen years and not attained the age of. - (a) forty years in the case of a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or Category of other Backward Classes; (b) thirty-eight years in the case of a person belonging to any of the Category 11(a) or 11(b) or 111(a) or 111(b) of other Backward Classes; and (c) thirty-five years in the case of any other person, on the last date fixed for the receipt of applications or on such other date, as may be specified by the Appointing Authority. Rule 6(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) the maximum age limit for appointment shall be deemed to be enhanced in the following cases to the extent mentioned, namely. Rule 6(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) the maximum age limit for appointment shall be deemed to be enhanced in the following cases to the extent mentioned, namely. - "(a) in the case of a candidate for appointment to a Class IV post on the personal establishment of a Minister, Minister of State or Deputy Minister, by five years, if such appointment is only for the duration of the term of office of such Minister, Minister of State or Deputy Minister; (b) in the case of a candidate who is or was holding a post under the Government or a local authority or a corporation established by a State Act or a Central Act or established by the Government under a State Act or Central Act and owned or controlled by the Government by the number of years during which he is or was holding such post or ten years whichever is less; (c) in the case of a candidate who is an ex-serviceman, by three years plus the number of years of service rendered by him in the Armed Forces of the Union; (d) in the case of a candidate who has been released from the National Cadet Corps after service as whole time Cadet Instructor by the number of years of service rendered by him as such Cadet Instructor; (e) in the case of a candidate who is or was a Village Group Inspector appointed in a Rural Industrialisation Scheme sponsored by the State Government, by the number of years of his service as such Village Group Inspector; (f) in the case of a candidate who is physically handicapped, by ten years; (g) in the case of a candidate who is or was a member of the staff of the former Maharaja of Mysore, by the number of years he is or was such a member; (h) in the case of a candidate who is or was holding a post under the Census Organisation of the Government of India in this State, by the number of years during which he is or was holding such post or by five years whichever is less; (i) in the case of a candidate who is a widow, by ten years; in the case of a candidate who is a bonded labourer by ten years; in the case of candidate for appointment to a Group 'B', Group 'C' or Group 'D' post in the Office of the Resident Commissioner, New Delhi and the Karnataka Bhavan, New Delhi, by eight years." 8. Rule 4 of Rules of 1999 stipulate that: "no employee who is not within the age limit prescribed for recruitment to the corresponding posts Government Educational Institutions shall be eligible for appointment to an post in any institution". Thus, the Rules of 1999 makes it explicitly clear the age limit would be the same for an employee of a private educational institute as it is for the corresponding post in the Government Educational Institutions. 9. The learned Counsel has heavily relied on Rule 6(3)(b) in order ti buttress his contention that the age should be relaxed by ten years. However the said argument is highly misplaced. For, Rule 6(3) applies to: "to candidate who is or was holding the post under the Government or a local authority or a corporation established by a State Act or Central Act and owned and controlled by the Government". However, as the petitioner is not working in any of the institutions mentioned above, as he is working in a private aided educational institution. Therefore, the benefit of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Rules of 1977 cannot be extended to him. 10. According to Rule 4 of the Rules 1999 an employee cannot be appointed if he is not within the age limit prescribed for recruitment to the corresponding posts in Government Educational Institutions. According to Rule 6(1 )(b) of the Rules of 1977, a person belonging to Category-II(a) or 11(b) or III(a) or III(b) of other backward classes the age limit is 38 years. However, admittedly the petitioner was 44 years when he filed the revision petition. Therefore, obviously he is over-aged. 11. Even the amendment made in the Rules of 2002 do not come to the rescue of the petitioner. For according to the amendment, the age limit shall be as provided under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1977, provided that the maximum age limit in respect of the candidates working as part time lectures or honorary teachers in Government High Schools shall be enhanced by the number of years during which he is or was holding the said post subject to maximum of 10 years. Since the petitioner was not and is not working in a Government High School and as is working in a private aided school the benefit of this amendment cannot be given to the petitioner. Since the petitioner was not and is not working in a Government High School and as is working in a private aided school the benefit of this amendment cannot be given to the petitioner. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the amendment is clearly untenable. 12. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Appellate Authority has also come to the conclusion that the petitioner is over-aged for being appointed under the advertisement dated 31-7-2015. As discussed above, the learned Appellate Authority is legally justified in drawing the said conclusion. 13. Since the petitioner cannot be granted the relief due to his overage, his challenge to the advertisement on the ground that single post cannot be reserved for particular category is purely academic in nature. Since the issue of reservation of a single post raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner even before this Court is merely academic, this Court need not go into the said issue. After all, even if this were to be decided in favour of the petitioner, even then no relief can be given to the petitioner either by this Court or by the learned Appellate Authority. Thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by entering into the said issue. Therefore, the learned Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 14. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.