JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the rejection of his candidature by the respondents after the petitioner had cleared written examination as being overaged. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner applied for the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) Grade - III. The upper age limit is 40 years and cut-off date for the purpose of age was 01.01.2019 and on account of the fact that the advertisement was issued after several years, a three years relaxation was granted. The petitioner filled the application form, wherein the age of the petitioner was indicated as 43 years 29 days and despite the fact that the petitioner was overaged, his form was not rejected, he was permitted to participate in the examination and his name appeared in merit list, however, during the course of document verification, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected being overaged. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner has not suppressed anything and had indicated the correct date of birth, whereby even in the form, the age of the petitioner has been indicated as 43 years 29 days, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the written examination, which he cleared and, therefore, there is no reason for the respondents to reject the candidature of the petitioner at the stage of document verification. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 5. The cut-off date as indicated in the advertisement based on the Rules is inflexible and even if the petitioner was overaged on the date despite the relaxation provided in the Rules, the candidate cannot be held eligible. The 3 years relaxation was granted to the petitioner on account of the fact that the recruitment was not held for over 5 years and as such as the cut- off was 40 years, once the age of petitioner was 43 years 29 days, he was clearly ineligible. 6. It is true that his form itself should have been rejected and he should not have been permitted to appear in the written examination, however, merely on account of the fact that the petitioner has been permitted in the written examination, which he passed and his name appeared in merit, cannot make him eligible as he is clearly ineligible otherwise. 7. 7. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.