JUDGMENT : 1. Vide this order above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as they raise common question of law. 2. Petitioners have filed the petitions alleging that they were aspirant to participate in the process of selection for the post of District Judge Cadre. Advertisement has been issued by the respondents on 5.1.2021 (Annexure-1) inviting applications for filling up the vacancies of District Judge Cadre. Petitioners had attained the age of 45 years during the period 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019. Petitioners were not permitted to participate in the process of selection on the ground that they had already attained the age of 45 years before the cut off date i.e., 01.01.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that injustice has been caused to the petitioners as they have been denied opportunity to participate in the selection process for the post of District Judge Cadre. Petitioners had attained the age of 45 years in the year 2019. No examination was conducted in the year 2019 and the year 2020. However, now the advertisement has been issued in January 2021 and the petitioners have been denied opportunity to participate in the selection process on the ground that they had become overage. 4. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioners were liable to be dismissed as the petitioners had attained the age of 45 years in the year 2019. When the examination was conducted in pursuance to notification issued in the year 2018, the age was calculated on the basis of 01.01.2019. In case, notification had been issued in the year 2019 for filling up vacancies to the cadre of District Judge, the age would have been calculated on the basis of 01.01.2020. Petitioners would have been overage by then and would not have been eligible to participate in the said selection. Hence, petitioners could not have participated in any selection held thereafter as they had already become overage. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that Note 7 of the notification/advertisement dated 5.1.2021 was in consonance with Rule 33 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010. 5. Hence, petitioners could not have participated in any selection held thereafter as they had already become overage. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that Note 7 of the notification/advertisement dated 5.1.2021 was in consonance with Rule 33 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010. 5. Rule 33 of the Rules deals with direct recruitment and the same reads as under:- "Eligibility for direct recruitment.-For the purpose of direct recruitment under sub-rule (3) of Rule 31, applications shall be invited by the Court from those Advocates, who fulfill the following conditions of eligibility:- (i) must have attained the age of 35 years and must not have attained the age of 45 years on the first day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of the applications: Provided that:- (a) the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by 5 years in case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, More Backward Classes and Women Candidates. (b) If a candidate would have been entitled in respect of his/her age to appear at the examination in any year in which no such examination was held, he/she shall be deemed to be entitled in respect of his/her age to appear at the next following examination. (c) If for any reason, the written examination/interview is cancelled in any particular year, it shall be open to the High Court to grant age relaxation to the candidate to appear in the next examination. (ii) must hold a degree of Bachelor of Laws (Professional) of any University established by Law in India and recognised as such under the Advocates Act, 1961. (iii) must have been an Advocate for a period of not less than seven years on the last date fixed for receipt of applications. (iv) must possess a thorough knowledge of Hindi Written in Devanagari script and Rajasthani dialects and social customs of Rajasthan. (v) the character of a candidate must be such as to render him suitable in the opinion of the Recruiting Authority in all respect for appointment to the service. He must produce two certificates of good character, written not more than six months prior to the last date of submission of application, from two responsible persons not related to him. (v) the character of a candidate must be such as to render him suitable in the opinion of the Recruiting Authority in all respect for appointment to the service. He must produce two certificates of good character, written not more than six months prior to the last date of submission of application, from two responsible persons not related to him. (vi) a person dismissed by the Central Government or by a State Government or convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude or any such offence, which in the opinion of the Recruiting Authority renders him unsuitable for appointment in Judicial Service shall not be eligible for appointment. (vii) no person shall be appointed as a member of the service unless he is in good mental and bodily health and free from any physical defect likely to interfere with the efficient performance of his duties as a member of the service. Before a candidate is finally approved for appointment by direct recruitment, he shall be required to appear before a medical board which will examine him and certify if he is fit for appointment to the service." 6. Clause 7 of notification/advertisement dated 5.1.2021 reads as under:- "AGE: A candidate for direct recruitment to the service must have attained the age of 35 years and must not have attained the age of 45 years on the 1st day of January 2022. Provided that the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by 5(five) years in case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, More Backward Classes and Women Candidates. Note:-In the last notification issued in 2018, for direct recruitment to the cadre of District Judge, the age was calculated on the basis of 01.01.2019. For this recruitment, age is being calculated on the basis of 01.01.2022. Therefore, the candidates, who would have been eligible in respect of his age as on 01.01.2020 & 01.01.2021, are entitled to apply for the post, if otherwise eligible." 7. Thus, a perusal of the rule 33 reveals that, in case, written examination/interview is cancelled in any particular year, then it shall be open to the High Court to grant age relaxation to the candidate to appear in the next examination. Thus, a perusal of the rule 33 reveals that, in case, written examination/interview is cancelled in any particular year, then it shall be open to the High Court to grant age relaxation to the candidate to appear in the next examination. A perusal of the advertisement/notification dated 5.1.2021 reveals that age relaxation has been given to the candidates who would have been eligible in respect of his age as on 01.01.2020 and 01.01.2021, if they were otherwise eligible. 8. So far as the petitioners are concerned, it has transpired during the course of the arguments that all the petitioners had participated in the selection process to the cadre of District Judge in pursuance to the notification issued in the year 2018 but had failed to qualify. For the recruitment process which had taken place in pursuance to the last notification issued in the year 2018, the age was calculated on the basis of 01.01.2019. Now, vide the present notification, candidates who would have been eligible in respect of his age as on 01.01.2020 and 01.01.2021 have been held entitled to apply for the post, if otherwise eligible. However, it is the case of the petitioners themselves that they had become overage on 01.01.2020 as they had all attained the age of 45 years during the period 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019. Hence, the petitions filed by the petitioners are misconceived. Petitioners in any case were overage even in case, notification had been issued in the year 2019 as for the said recruitment, the age would have been calculated on the basis of 01.01.2020. 9. So far as the present advertisement is concerned, the same has been issued as per the rules. 10. No ground for interference is made out. 11. Dismissed.