JUDGMENT (Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 10.08.2016 made in W.P.No.25139 of 2010.) Subramonium Prasad, J. 1. The short issue which arises for consideration is as to whether Rule 54 B which was inserted by an amendment in the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, on 11.08.2010 and which was deemed to have come into force on 17.07.2006, can be applied to a notification dated 01.08.2007, by which persons who attain 35 years of age between 17th July 2006 and 16th July 2011, alone will be benefited. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was born on 7.6.1967. He belongs to the Schedule Tribe Category. He was selected and posted as Junior Co-operative Auditor by direct recruitment through TNPSC in the cadre of posts included in Group - II in the year 1995. On 29.11.2001, the Government of Tamil Nadu, brought out G.0.Ms.No.212 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, dated 29.11.2001, stating that the Government has decided to effect economy in expenditure and accordingly, directed that filling up of vacant posts shall be completely banned except certain categories of posts such as Teachers, Doctors and Police Constables, etc., which are declared as residential posts. The said ban was lifted on 7.2.2006. 3. In view of the fact that there was a ban on recruitment and a number of persons could not get employment, Government issued G.0.Ms.No.98, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 17.7.2006, by which it relaxed the upper age limit for entering into Government service by five years to enable the unemployed youth affected by the ban order on recruitment to apply for Government jobs. 4. By another G.0.Ms.No. 152, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 18.9.2006, relaxation for five years was also given to those who are already in Government service to enable them to write the competitive exams in Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 5. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, issued a Notification, on 1.8.2007, inviting applications in Group - I Services for the post of Deputy Collector, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category - 1), Commercial Tax Officer, Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, District Registrar, Assistant Director of Rural Development Department (Panchayat)/Personal Assistant (Development) to Collector, District Employment Officer and Divisional Officer in the Fire and Rescue Services Department. The last date for receipt of applications is 31.3.1997. 6. The last date for receipt of applications is 31.3.1997. 6. The minimum and maximum of age limit prescribed in the advertisement was that a candidate should have completed 21 years i.e., he should have been born on or before 1.7.1986 and the maximum age limit for Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates was 35 years, as on 1.7.2007. The petitioner appeared in the examination but he was not called for the interview. He therefore, filed W.P.No.29832 of 2008 and by virtue of an order of this Court, passed on 30.4.2009, he was allowed to attend the interview but results were not declared. 7. The petitioner filed a second writ petition in W.R No.19695 of 2009 for declaration of results and this Court, passed an order to keep one post reserved. The writ petition is still pending. In the meantime, the Government passed an amendment in Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, inserting Rule 54 B. The said Rule 54 B reads as under:- "54-B. Age concession for persons affected due to the ban on direct recruitment:- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Special rules for the various post, in the case of a person who has been affected due to the ban on direct recruitment that was imposed on the 29th November 2001, the upper age limit shall be raised to a maximum period of five years reckoned on and from the 17th July 2006 (ending with the 16th July 2011) in computing his age for appointment to any post under the State Government, except the categories of posts of Teachers, Doctors and Police Contabulary and shall be applicable in respect of notifications issued or selections made by the competent recruiting authorities or appointments made by competent appointing authorities during the aforesaid period." 8. The amendment was notified by G.O.Ms.No.114, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department,dated 11.8.2010.This Government Order, which came into effect from 17.07.2006, has been challenged in instant writ petition. According to the petitioner, there was no rational to restrict the benfit of five years only between 17th July 2006 to 16th July 2011. As stated earlier, petitioner was born on 07.06.1967. He would not get the benefit of the said G.O. because he would have crossed the age limit on 17.07.2006. The amendment was brought in by G.O.Ms.No.114 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 11.08.2010 making it effective from 17.07.2006. 9. As stated earlier, petitioner was born on 07.06.1967. He would not get the benefit of the said G.O. because he would have crossed the age limit on 17.07.2006. The amendment was brought in by G.O.Ms.No.114 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 11.08.2010 making it effective from 17.07.2006. 9. It is the contention of the petitioner that his Date of Birth is 7.6.1967 and on the date when the ban order was passed, he was 34 years 3 months and 22 days. He therefore, was entitled to one more chance to appear in Group - I examination but because of the ban order, there was no examination. The ban was lifted on 7/2/2006.But five years relaxation was given. Therefore, he could take the examination till he attained the age of 40 years. The relaxation of upper age was extended to in service candidates also, by G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 18/9/2006, which also gave five years relaxation in the age limit. The petitioner attained the age of 40 years as on 7/6/2007.Under the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules, the age limit has to be reckoned on the first day of July of the year vacancies notified.Therefore, as on 1/7/2007, the petitioner becomes over age. As per the advertisement, it is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner if given the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.152, he would have been eligible to take part in the selection, but he was not permitted. The petitioner has given a chart as to how the ban order dated 29.11.2001 would affect the rights of candidates born between 17.07.1966 and 17.07.1971. The petitioner has given a chart as to how the ban order dated 29.11.2001 would affect the rights of candidates born between 17.07.1966 and 17.07.1971. The chart as produced by the petitioner reads as under:- S.No Date Description Age as on 1 17.07.1971 29.11.2001 30 (4 months 12 days) 2 17.07.1970 29.11.2001 31 (4 months 12 days) 3 17.07.1969 29.11.2001 32 (4 months 12 days) 4 17.07.1968 29.11.2001 33 (4 months 12 days) 5 17.07.1967 29.11.2001 34 (4 months 12 days) 6 17.07.1966 29.11.2001 35 (4 months 12 days) S. No Date of Birth Crucial Date as per amended provision 54(B) (i.e. Reconing date for 5years for calculation) Age Ending Date Age for the same age group up to 16.07.2011 1 17.07.1971 5 years re-coning from 17.07.2006 35 16.07.2011 40 2 17.07.1970 5 years re-coning from 17.07.2006 36 16.07.2010 39 3 17.07.1969 5 years re-coning from 17.07.2006 37 16.07.2009 38 4 17.07.1968 5 years re-coning from 17.07.2006 38 16.07.2008 37 5 17.07.1967 5 years re-coning from 17.07.2006 39 16.07.2007 36 6 17.07.1966 5 years re-coning from 17.07.2006 40 16.07.2006 35 10. It is the submission of the petitioner that a candidate who is affected by the Ban order is in the age group between 30 to 35 when the ban order was in force and will cross 40, if the cut of date is 16.07.2011. The the candidates would not then get the benefit. He therefore submits that the benefit should be extended upto 16.07.2017 . 11. We do not find any justification in the contention of the petitioner. The Government wanted to help persons who had lost the opportunity of employment due to the ban order. The benefit was also extended to employees who were already in service, but were denied to take part in selection process which would have helped them in their carrer advancement. The petitioner had crossed the age of 40 being born on 01.07.1967 and was therefore not entitled to benefit of any relaxation on the date the notification came into force. The amendment in the Service rules would not help him in any manner. In any event, one cannot insist that rules must be amended only to suit the petitioner and it should be tailor made for the benefit of the petitioner. The five year ban period was over on 07.02.2006 and the G.O.Ms.No.152, giving five years relaxation even to in-service candidates is 07.07.2006. In any event, one cannot insist that rules must be amended only to suit the petitioner and it should be tailor made for the benefit of the petitioner. The five year ban period was over on 07.02.2006 and the G.O.Ms.No.152, giving five years relaxation even to in-service candidates is 07.07.2006. The petitioner would have got benefit only upto 07.06.2007 even by applying G.O.Ms.No.152. 12. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission invited applications up to 31.08.2007 for the year 2006 - 2007, for filling up the various posts in Group-I services. The petitioner is therefore not entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.152, since he could have crossed the age of 40 (by giving 5 years relaxation) on 01.07.2007. The challenge to Rule -54(B) made by the petitioner is therefore not sustainable in law. 13. It is the prerogative of the State Government to give the benefit of relaxation of age to persons who have lost employment opportunities because of ban on fresh recruitment. The petitioner has not been able to point out as to how Rule 54-B inserted in the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules,by G.O.Ms.No.114, Personnel and Administrative Department dated 11.08.2010 is so manifestly arbitrary that it should be struck down as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We are also in agreement with the Single Judge that the issue is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in A.Alagesan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, (2016) 2 MLJ 215 ,wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has upheld Rule 54(B) of the Tamil Nadu State andn Subordinate Services Rules. The Division Bench after examining the amendment observed as under:- "7. Under similar circumstances, in an earlier round of litigation, a group of similarly placed persons challenged the said Rule 54B of the General Rules and after hearing the parties, by a common order dated 7.8.2015 made in W.P. Nos. 24341 to 24344 of 2015, a Division Bench of this Court comprising in R. Renganathan v. Government of Tamil Nadu, extensively dealt with the contentions raised and dismissed the writ petitions holding as under: “21. From the reading of G.O.Ms. 24341 to 24344 of 2015, a Division Bench of this Court comprising in R. Renganathan v. Government of Tamil Nadu, extensively dealt with the contentions raised and dismissed the writ petitions holding as under: “21. From the reading of G.O.Ms. No. 114, P & AR (S) Department, dated 11.08.2010, it could be further deduced that because there was ban for 5 years between 29.11.2001 and 07.02.2006, the Government have granted concession of upper age limit, to a maximum period of 5 years, reckoned on and from 17th July 2006, ending with the 16th July 2011, in computing the age for appointment, to any post under the State Government, except the categories of posts of Teachers, Doctors and Police Constabulary. 22. Government Order also makes it clear that the Government have fixed a specific date, for computing the upper age limit, while granting relaxation for applying to any post under the State Government. Concession granted is given only to those who were affected and could not participate in the competitive examination, during the ban period between 2001 and 2006, by giving a specific reason that on account of the ban, during the said period, they became over-aged. After five years period, the concession granted, no longer continued. … 27. Concession granted to the abovesaid specific categories both unemployed youth and those in Government service, during the said period of ban, between 29.11.2001 and 07.02.2006, cannot be claimed as a matter of right stating that the Government should relax the upper age limit of 5 years, to everybody, and more particularly, to those who had the opportunity to participate in the subsequent selection recruitment process in 2007 and 2013 respectively. Concession and relaxation cannot be claimed, as a matter of right. Depending upon the number of vacancies, need for recruitment and such other factors, the Government notifies the vacancies, through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai, respondent No. 2, the agency, for conducting the competitive examinations. Right to employment is not a constitutional or statutory right, to be enforced against the Government. Nevertheless, it is the duty of the Government to fill up the posts, as and when there is a need. 28. Merely because, Group I examination was not conducted, as expected by the petitioner and others, relaxation of upper age cannot be claimed, as a matter of right. Nevertheless, it is the duty of the Government to fill up the posts, as and when there is a need. 28. Merely because, Group I examination was not conducted, as expected by the petitioner and others, relaxation of upper age cannot be claimed, as a matter of right. Government have not issued any promise for relaxation of upper age limit by 5 years, to all the unemployed youth and in service candidates, for all times to come. Government Orders have been made only to cover those, who could not participate in the selection process for the period between 29.11.2001 and 07.02.2006. Yet another factor to be considered by this Court is that when notification was issued in 2007, there was no objection to the same, when the Government have fixed the age limit. Again in 2013, there was no challenge. The petitioners had an opportunity to participate in the selection process. Now, when notification dated 10.07.2015, is issued in 2015, fixing the upper age limit, the petitioners have alleged violation of Article 14 and contended that there is a violation of the principles of promissory estoppel and doctrine of legitimate expectation. 29. Government have never made any promise that the upper age limit would be relaxed, for all times. That would be against the statutory rules, wherein upper age limit is prescribed, for the posts. There was no specific promise by the Government, that in all future recruitments to the posts in Group I Services, in Government, upper age would be relaxed, by five years. Government have issued orders only to those, affected by the ban period between 29.11.2001 and 07.02.2006. Therefore, it would not be appropriate on the part of the petitioners to contend that the doctrine of promissory estoppel has to be applied. Therefore, the question of applying Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel does not arise.” (emphasis supplied) 8. Even prior to the above decision of the Division Bench, a learned Single Judge (V. Ramasubramanian, J.) had also taken a similar view in D. Ameer Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu (Order dated 9.1.2013 in W.P.(MD) Nos. 65 and 66 of 2013) and held as follows: “13. A careful scrutiny of G.O.Ms. No. 98 would show that the ban order itself was in force only for a period of less than 4 years and 3 months. The ban order was in force from 29.11.2001 upto 7.2.2006. 65 and 66 of 2013) and held as follows: “13. A careful scrutiny of G.O.Ms. No. 98 would show that the ban order itself was in force only for a period of less than 4 years and 3 months. The ban order was in force from 29.11.2001 upto 7.2.2006. But the relaxation in the upper age limit was granted by G.O.Ms. No. 98, for a full period of 5 years. Persons who were on the verge of reaching the upper age limit during the period of ban order, namely, from November 2001 to February, 2006, were the persons who were actually intended to be benefitted by the Government Order and the relaxation. Persons, who were not at the fringe, did not come within the zone within which the relaxation would have been beneficial for him. 14. The issue can be looked at from another angle. The benefit that the petitioners now claim, is a relaxation in the upper age limit without any restriction with regard to any date. If this is accepted what would happen is that the benefit of relaxation will assume completely disproportionate magnitude to the problem that is sought to resolve. The problem that G.O.Ms. No. 98 sought to resolve was the ineligibility of persons, who were at the fringe, to appear for direct recruitment to Public Services during the period of the ban order. Even persons, who had not attained majority either by 2001 or by 2006, now seek to benefit if a general relaxation upto 5 years is granted for all persons uniformly. Paragraph 2 of G.O.Ms. No. 98 shows very clearly that it was intended only to benefit those who lost the opportunity to participate in any direct recruitment to Public Services. 15. The petitioners, who are now 35 and 39 years of age, would have been only 23 and 27 years of age at the time when the ban order was imposed in November 2001. They would have actually become 28 and 32 years of age at the time when the ban order was lifted. After the lifting of the ban order in 2006, the petitioners have had the opportunity to participate in direct recruitment for a period of 5 years, upto 2011. 16. To put it differently, the ban order was a one time affair. What the petitioners now seek is a relaxation as an all time affair. After the lifting of the ban order in 2006, the petitioners have had the opportunity to participate in direct recruitment for a period of 5 years, upto 2011. 16. To put it differently, the ban order was a one time affair. What the petitioners now seek is a relaxation as an all time affair. If the malady is a one time affair, the remedy should also be only a one time affair and not an all time affair. 17. Mr. M. Ajmalkhan, learned Senior Counsel assailed the impugned order on the ground that though relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right, an order granting relaxation can be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 and on the question whether it seeks to serve the object for which it came into existence. I have, in fact, tested the impugned Rule on the very same touchstone. As pointed out earlier, the ban order came to existence to remove the hardship caused to the aspirants to Public Services, for a period of 4 years and 3 months. Taking a beneficial attitude, the said hardship was removed by providing relaxation upto 5 years, during the period from the date of issue of the Government Order upto the date of expiry of 5 years. Therefore, the Rule has, in fact, sought to achieve the object for which G.O.Ms. No. 98 was imposed. Therefore, prima facie, I do not find any illegality in the impugned Rule and hence the writ petitions, cannot be entertained. Accordingly, they are dismissed.” (emphasis supplied) 9. However, another learned Single Judge (Vinod K. Sharma, J.) in P. Pandyrajan v. General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Nellai) Ltd., took a contra view and allowed the writ petitions holding that Rule 54B of the Generral Rules is arbitrary and has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It was held that the right given under G.O.Ms. No. 98, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, dated 17.7.2006, cannot be taken away by inserting Rule 54B of the General Rules. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under: “71. The learned Advocate General and other counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have not been able to explain how G.O. Ms. No. 98, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, dated 17.7.2006, cannot be taken away by inserting Rule 54B of the General Rules. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under: “71. The learned Advocate General and other counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have not been able to explain how G.O. Ms. No. 98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 17.7.2006, which gave general relaxation of age was modified, while incorporating it as Rule 54-B of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, by adding that the benefit of five years relaxation is only applicable from 17.7.2006 to 16.7.2011. 72. Once in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, G.O. Ms. No. 98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 17.7.2006 was issued, giving relaxation of five years of age, in appointment to the Government service, which was extended to the State Corporations, the right could not be taken away by subsequent G.O. Ms. No. 114 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 11.8.2010, as G.O. Ms. No. 98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 17.7.2006, stipulated that relaxation would be incorporated in the Rules. This was required to be incorporated, as such, and not modified. It is well settled law, that Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, can only be amended or modified, by following the same procedure. 73. Rule 54-B of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules therefore, on the face of it, is arbitrary, as it has no nexus with object sought to be achieved. The posts to be filled up fell vacant prior to 16.7.2011, therefore right of eligible persons cannot be taken away by modifying the rule framed by Hon'ble Governor while incorporating it as rule. Otherwise also, while G.O. Ms. No. 98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 17.7.2006, was adopted by transport corporations, subsequent G.O., framing Rule 54-B has not been adopted by transport corporations. Therefore, the transport corporations are bound by G.O. Ms. No. 98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 17.7.2006 and not Rule 54-B of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. 74. The contention of the learned advocate General, that it is the policy decision of the State Government, whether to grant or not to grant the age relaxation cannot be disputed. No. 98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 17.7.2006 and not Rule 54-B of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. 74. The contention of the learned advocate General, that it is the policy decision of the State Government, whether to grant or not to grant the age relaxation cannot be disputed. It is true, that this Court, by issuing a writ, in the nature of mandamus, cannot direct the State Government, to frame the Rules with regard to age or other conditions of service, as it is the prerogative of the Corporation or the State, to take a decision in this regard. But, at the same time, in view of the admission in the counter, that State Government had taken a policy decision by accepting the order of this Court, and had issued directions to make G.O. Ms. No. 98 Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 17.7.2006, applicable for employees to the State agencies. This right could not be taken away by Rule 54-B of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, in garb of incorporating Notification in the Rules, specially when this Rule is not adopted by the State Corporations. 75. The second question is also decided in favour of the petitioners, and it is held, that the candidates applying for the posts will be entitled to benefit of five years relaxation in age.” 10. The Government taking note of the fact that many unemployed youth were affected by the ban on recruitment to government jobs imposed between 29.11.2001 and 7.2.2006, issued G.O.Ms. No. 98, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 17.7.2006, relaxing the upper age limit for entering into government service by five years. The said government order reads as under: “Personnel - Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services - Ban on recruitment - lifted - Relaxation of upper age limit for entering the Government service by five years to unemployed youth - Orders - issued. PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (S) DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms. No. 98 Dated 17.07.2006 Read: 1. G.O.Ms. No. 212 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department dated 29.11.2001. 2. G.O.Ms. No. 14 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department dated 07.02.2006. PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (S) DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms. No. 98 Dated 17.07.2006 Read: 1. G.O.Ms. No. 212 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department dated 29.11.2001. 2. G.O.Ms. No. 14 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department dated 07.02.2006. ORDER:- The Government in their orders First read above, have issued orders banning the filling up of vacant posts in the State and Subordinate Services by direct recruitment, except in respect of certain categories of posts considered essential, such as Teachers, Doctors and Police Constabulary. In their orders second read above, the above ban on direct recruitment was lifted with immediate effect. 2. His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu, in his address in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on 24.05.2006 has among others announced that the upper age limit for entering into Government service will be relaxed by five years to enable the unemployed youth affected by the ban order to recruitment, to apply for government jobs. 3. The Government after careful consideration, accordingly direct that the upper age limit for entering into Government service shall be relaxed by five years, to enable the unemployed youth affected by the ban order on recruitment, to apply for Government jobs. 4. Necessary amendments to the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services will be issued separately. (BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)” (emphasis supplied) 11. From a reading of the above said government order, it is clear that the Government relaxed the upper age limit for entering into Government service by five years to enable the unemployed youth affected by the ban order of recruitment to apply for government jobs. Subsequently, by G.O.Ms. No. 152, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 18.9.2006, the Government extended similar concession to those who are already in Government service, so as to enable them to write the competitive examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. In both the above government orders, the Government has stated that necessary amendment to General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services will be issued separately. 12. Subsequently, the government issued G.O.Ms. In both the above government orders, the Government has stated that necessary amendment to General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services will be issued separately. 12. Subsequently, the government issued G.O.Ms. No. 114, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 11.8.2010, inserting a separate provision in the General Rules in Part II of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules by inserting Rule 54B, which reads as under: “54B Age concession for persons affected due to the ban on direct recruitment: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Special Rules for the various State and Subordinate Services or in any ad hoc rules applicable to any temporary post, in the case of a person who has been affected due to the ban on direct recruitment that was imposed on the 29th November 2001. The upper age limit shall be raised to a maximum period of five years reckoned on and from the 17th July 2006, ending with the 16th July 2011, in computing his age for appointment to any post under the State Government, except the categories of posts of Teachers, Doctors and Police Constabulary and Shall be applicable in respect of notification issued or selections made by competent recruiting authorities or appointments made by competent appointing authorities during the aforesaid period.” (emphasis supplied) 13. It is the plea of the petitioners that restricting the relaxation of upper age limit up to 16.7.2011 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as equals are treated unequally without any nexus to the object sought to be achieved. In other words, it is the plea of the petitioners that the individuals who were 25 to 29 years in the case of OC and those who were 30 to 34 years in the case of BC, MBC, SC/ST as on the date of imposition of the ban in 2001 have got the full effect of the relaxation, whereas the petitioners, who were 21 to 24 years as on 2001 in the case of OC and 21 to 29 years in the case of BC, MBC, SC/ST, are deprived of their valuable right to take part in the recruitment process, by virtue of the artificial cut-off date fixed vide the said Rule. 14. The true intent of G.O.Ms. 14. The true intent of G.O.Ms. No. 98, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, dated 17.7.2006 is to relax upper age limit for entering into Government service by five years to enable the unemployed youth affected by the ban order on recruitment to apply for government jobs. G.O.Ms. No. 152, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 18.9.2006 granted similar relaxation to persons in government service to enable them to write competitive examinations conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The said government orders were issued to ensure that persons who were about to cross the upper age limit for recruitment to government services by virtue of the ban are not affected. 15. Subsequently, the Government inserted Section 54B of the Rules prescribing that the upper age limit shall be raised to a maximum of five years reckoned on and from 17.7.2006 ending with 16.7.2011, in computing the age for appointment to any post under the State Government. Even as per the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners were in the age group of 21 to 24 years on as on 2001 in the case of OC and 21 to 29 years in the case of BC, MBC, SC/ST. Therefore, they had the opportunity to take part in the Group I Service Examinations conducted in the year 2007, immediately after the ban was lifted. Such concession of upper age limited granted cannot be extended ad infinitum, as that would run counter to general age limit fixed for recruitment to government service. 16. The relaxation granted by the Government was a one-time measure and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the petitioners, as fixing the cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age prescribed for a post is in the discretion of the rule-making authority. Whenever a cut-off date is fixed for determining maximum or minimum age for the post, there are bound to be some candidates, who will be over-aged or who are age-barred, but, this alone cannot be the reason for holding that the cut-off date, fixed by the government is arbitrary. Of course, courts are empowered to interfere even with a policy decision, if is found to be wholly irrational. But, merely because the petitioners claim that they had lesser opportunities to appear for examinations for government services, a policy decision cannot be interfered with. 17. Of course, courts are empowered to interfere even with a policy decision, if is found to be wholly irrational. But, merely because the petitioners claim that they had lesser opportunities to appear for examinations for government services, a policy decision cannot be interfered with. 17. The above said view of ours is fortified by a decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 614 , wherein it is held as under: “5. This contention, in our view, is not sustainable. In the first place the fixing of a cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age prescribed for a post is not, per se, arbitrary. Basically, the fixing of a cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age required for a post, is in the discretion of the rule-making authority or the employer as the case may be. One must accept that such a cut-off date cannot be fixed with any mathematical precision and in such a manner as would avoid hardship in all conceivable cases. As soon as a cut- off date is fixed there will be some persons who fall on the right side of the cut-off date and some persons who will fall on the wrong side of the cut-off date. That cannot make the cut-off date, per se, arbitrary unless the cut-off date is so wide off the mark as to make it wholly unreasonable. This view was expressed by this Court in Union of India v. Parameswaran Match Works, (1975) 1 SCC 305 and has been reiterated in subsequent cases. In the case of A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra, (1990) 2 SCC 669 , the relevant service rule stipulated that the candidate should not have completed the age of 26 years on the 1st day of July of the year in which the selection is made. Such a cut-off date was challenged. This Court considered the various steps required in the process of selection and said, ‘when such are the different steps in the process of selection the minimum or maximum age of suitability of a candidate for appointment can not be allowed to depend upon any fluctuating or uncertain date. Such a cut-off date was challenged. This Court considered the various steps required in the process of selection and said, ‘when such are the different steps in the process of selection the minimum or maximum age of suitability of a candidate for appointment can not be allowed to depend upon any fluctuating or uncertain date. If the final stage of selection is delayed and more often it happens for various reasons, the candidates who are eligible on the date of application may find themselves eliminated at the final stage for no fault of theirs. The date to attain the minimum or maximum age must, therefore, be specific and determinate as on a particular date for candidates to apply and for the recruiting agency to scrutinise the applications.’ This Court, therefore, held that in order to avoid uncertainty in respect of minimum or maximum age of a candidate, which may arise if such an age is linked to the process of selection which may take an uncertain time, it is desirable that such a cut-off date should be with reference to a fixed date. Therefore, fixing an independent cut-off date, far from being arbitrary, makes for certainty in determining the maximum age. Xxx 11. In our view this kind of an interpretation cannot be given to a rule for relaxation of age. The power of relaxation is required to be exercised in public interest in a given case; as for example, if other suitable candidates are not available for the post, and the only candidate who is suitable has crossed the maximum age- limit; or to mitigate hardship in a given case. Such a relaxation in special circumstances of a given case is to be exercised by the administration after referring that case to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. There cannot be any wholesale relaxation because the advertisement is delayed or because the vacancy occurred earlier especially when there is no allegation of any mala fides in connection with any delay in issuing an advertisement. This kind of power of wholesale relaxation would make for total uncertainty in determining the maximum age of a candidate. It might be unfair to a large number of candidates who might be similarly situated, but who may not apply, thinking that they are age-barred. We fail to see how the power of relaxation can be exercised in the manner contended.” (emphasis supplied) 18. It might be unfair to a large number of candidates who might be similarly situated, but who may not apply, thinking that they are age-barred. We fail to see how the power of relaxation can be exercised in the manner contended.” (emphasis supplied) 18. For the foregoing reasons, we find no reasons to differ with the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in R. Renganathan case, referred supra.” 14. The appellant has not given any reason for us to differ from the view taken by the two Division Benches which have upheld Rule 54(B). Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No Costs.