JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 11 of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1989') as also Clause 3 of the Standing Order No. 29/2021 dated 03.09.2021 in the matter of claim for relaxation of age limit to Home Guards for the purpose of appointment to the post of Constable. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that exclusion of the category of Home Guards for the purposes of relaxation of age for appointment to the post of Constable is arbitrary and discriminatory, being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He would submit that the petitioners are working as Home Guards and the nature of their duties and functions are similar to other Government servants, particularly, to that of Police Constable. While providing for relaxation in age to various categories of persons under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1989, the category of Home Guards has been arbitrarily excluded. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier when direction was issued by this Court to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners, the representation has been mechanically rejected. 3. Rule 11 of the Rules of 1989, in the matter of appointment to various posts in the cadre specified in the Rule, provides for relaxation as below: "11. Age.-A candidate for direct recruitment to the services must have attained- (a) for the post of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander, the age of 20 years and must not have attained the age of 23 years, on 1st January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications. (b) for the post of Constables, the age of 18 years and must not have attained the age of 21 years on 1st day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications. (b) for the post of Constables, the age of 18 years and must not have attained the age of 21 years on 1st day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications. However the upper age-limit for Constable (Driver) shall be 24 years: Provided that- [1) the upper age limit shall be relaxed by- (a) 5 years in case of male candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the woman candidates belonging to General category; (b) 10 years in case of Women candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Schedules Tribes and the Other Backward Classes; and (c) 3 years in case of the candidates belonging to State Government employees and the dependents of the deceased Police Officers/Officials killed in the discharge of their duties.] (2) the upper age-limit mentioned above shall be 40 years in the case of Ex-Service Personnel and the Reservists, namely the service personnel who are transferred to the Reserve. (3) however the upper age-limit mentioned above may be relaxed by three years in exceptional cases by appointing authority, after previous approval of Government. (4) that the released Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers after release from the army, shall be deemed to be within the age-limit, whey they appear before the commission, had they been eligible as such at the time of their joining the commission in the Army. [(5) the provisions of Notification No. F. 7(2) DOP/A-II/84-Part dated 25.06.2004 shall not be applicable to clause (b) of Rule 11 of these rules.]" 4. The aforesaid Rule lays down the statutory policy framed by the rule making authority as to which class is to be granted relaxation. 5. The petitioners' claim for inclusion in the category of relaxation proceeds only on the submission that the authority ought to have considered petitioners' class also for the purpose of relaxation without their being any material before the Court to show that they are similarly situated class which has been included for the purpose of age relaxation under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1989. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in some other States, there is relaxation for the Home Guards. That is not the ground which can be said to be available to the Home Guards in the State of Rajasthan. Different statutory schemes are applicable in different States. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in some other States, there is relaxation for the Home Guards. That is not the ground which can be said to be available to the Home Guards in the State of Rajasthan. Different statutory schemes are applicable in different States. Framing the scheme of relaxation in age to different classes and category is essentially in the realm of the rule making authority and merely because in some other States such benefit has been granted, no writ can be issued by this Court to the respondents-rule making authority to amend the rule in a particular manner, as desired by the petitioners. 7. As to who should be granted relaxation in age is essentially in the realm of statutory policy which cannot be decided by the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The submission that since class of Home Guards have been granted bonus marks, therefore, they should also be considered for age relaxation is a matter for consideration by the rule making authority. Grant of bonus marks by itself, without anything more, does not entitle the petitioners to claim relaxation in age also and seeking directions to the respondents-authorities to amend the rule to include class of Home Guards is not the function of the Writ Court. No directions can be issued to the Legislature or the rule making authority for framing rules for the schemes of grant of age relaxation in a particular manner. 8. In our considered opinion, this petition is thoroughly misconceived and is therefore dismissed.