JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is of the Other Backward Category (OBC) and is already employed in the State Services. An advertisement has been issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission for the Combined State/Upper Subordinate Service Examination, 2017 where the petitioner is claiming further age relaxation as he admittedly at present is about 46 years of age. 3. The contention is that the petitioner should be treated to be eligible under the age conditions prescribed, inasmuch as, he being of the Other Backward Category is entitled to apply up to 45 years and in addition thereto he is entitled to a further relaxation of 5 years that is available to in-service employees. Consequently, the application form of the petitioner deserves to be accepted and he should not be denied the opportunity to appear in the said examination. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission Shri Rajnish Kumar, submits that such a double relaxation is not permissible and he has cited the Division Bench order passed in Writ - A No. 28103 of 2014 decided on 20.5.2014 to substantiate his submissions. Further, he invites the attention of the Court to Clause 8 which is the reservation clause contained in the advertisement dated 22.2.2017 and the note appended to Clause 8 read as under : uksV%& 1- vkj{k.k@vk;q esa NwV dk ykHk pkgus okys vH;FkhZ lacaf/kr vkjf{kr Js.kh ds leFkZu esa bl foLr`r foKkiu ds ifjf'k"V&3 esa eqfnzr rFkk osclkbV ij miyC/k fu/kkZfjr izk:i ij l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh izek.k i= izkIr dj ysa ,oa tc muls vis{kk dh tk; rc os mls vk;ksx dks izLrqr djsaA 2- m0 iz0 ds vkjf{kr Js.kh ds lHkh vH;FkhZ vkosnu esa viuh Js.kh@mi Js.kh vo'; vafdr djsaA 3- ,d ls vf/kd vkjf{kr Js.kh@vk;q esa NwV dk nkok djus okys vH;fFkZZ;ksa dks dsoy ,d NwV] tks vf/kd ykHkdkjh gksxh] nh tk;sxhA 5. He further submits that the maximum age limit relaxation is provided for in Clause - 12 which has to be read alongwith the aforesaid note. A combined reading of both the clauses leaves no room for doubt that such relaxation will be available on only one count. 6. We find this to be rational, reasonable and in conformity with the rules. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim a second relaxation up to the age of 50 years to make him eligible. 7. A combined reading of both the clauses leaves no room for doubt that such relaxation will be available on only one count. 6. We find this to be rational, reasonable and in conformity with the rules. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim a second relaxation up to the age of 50 years to make him eligible. 7. The writ petition lacks merit and is rejected.