ORDER : 1. Heard on admission. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of writ of mandamus/directions to allow him to participate in the recruitment process for selection on posts in the cadre of District Judge initiated vide notification dated 09.07.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per the existing and applicable provisions contained in Rule 33 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (for short ‘the Rules of 2010’) 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. 4. It is contended that applying the aforesaid prescription of the Rules of 2010, clause-10 of the advertisement dated 09.07.2024 clearly provides that for this recruitment, age is being calculated on the basis of 01.01.2025. Therefore, the candidates, who would have been eligible in respect of his/her age as on 01.01.2023 & 01.01.2024, are also entitled to apply for the post, if otherwise eligible. 5. Further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prescription in the Rule read with clause-10 of the advertisement is required to be construed rationally to mean that such eligibility must relate to the year in which the vacancies arose, but recruitment could not be held to fill up those vacancies. Referring to the contents of the advertisement, it is submitted that in the present recruitment process, backlog vacancies of 2015- 2016, 2016-2017, 2018-2019, 2020-2021 and current vacancies of 2021-2022, 2022-2023, 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 are being filled up and as no recruitment had taken place in 2021-2022, 2022-2023 and 2023-2024, the petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category and entitled to five years’ relaxation of age, fulfills the eligibility of age criteria, but he was illegally not allowed to fill up his examination form. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 02.04.1971. 6. On advance copy, Mr. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 02.04.1971. 6. On advance copy, Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate representing the respondents submits that the provisions for deemed age eligibility contained in the Rules of 2010 read with the terms and conditions of the advertisement is aimed at obviating hardship to those candidates, who were eligible in the year, in which the recruitment had not taken place and this deemed eligibility criteria provided under the Rules of 2010 is not with reference to the year in which the vacancy arose because earlier also these vacancies were opened in the previous recruitment in the year 2021 when an advertisement was issued on 05.01.2021. Therefore, it is contended, the petitioner who had crossed the age limit of 50, with all relaxation given, would not be eligible as on 01.01.2025, as the examination was held in the year 2021 though recruitment was not initiated in subsequent years 2022 and 2023. 7. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in this petition, it is necessary to refer to the provisions contained in the applicable Rules of 2010, providing for eligibility for direct recruitment. The relevant part of the Rules is extracted herein-below: “33. 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, Economically Weaker Sections 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.” 8. (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.” 8. A fair and logical interpretation of Rule 33 of the Rules of 2010 reveals that a candidate eligible for the purpose of direct recruitment to District Judge cadre must fulfill the age eligibility in the manner that he 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. 9. The upper age limit has been relaxed by five years in respect of the candidates belonging to reserve category, which includes Scheduled Castes as well. 10. Sub Rule (b) of Rule 33 of the Rules of 2010 provides for deemed eligibility in the manner that 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. Clause (c) further provides that 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. 11. Applying the aforesaid criteria, the advertisement which was issued on 09.07.2024 provides as below: “Clause 10 Age: A candidate for direct recruitment to the cadre of District Judge must have attained the age of 35 years and must not have attained the age of 45 years on the first day of January (01.01.2025) following the last date fixed for receipt of the online applications, provided that: (i) 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 (NCL), More Backward Classes (NCL), Economically Weaker Sections and Women Candidates. Note: The above relaxation in age will be admissible only in one category. (ii) the upper age limit shall be relaxed by 5 years in case of the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities. Such age relaxation shall be in addition to the age relaxation already provided to different categories in Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010. Note: The above relaxation in age will be admissible only in one category. (ii) the upper age limit shall be relaxed by 5 years in case of the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities. Such age relaxation shall be in addition to the age relaxation already provided to different categories in Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010. Note: In the last Notification issued in 2021, for direct recruitment to the Cadre of District Judge, the age was calculated on the basis of 01.01.2022. For this recruitment, age is being calculated on the basis of 01.01.2025. Therefore, the candidates, who would have been eligible in respect of his/her age as on 01.01.2023 & 01.01.2024, are also entitled to apply for the post, if otherwise eligible.” 12. The note appended to Clause 10 makes it clear that for the present recruitment, age is being calculated as on 01.01.2025, which is the first day of the January following the last date fixed for the receipt of the application. Therefore, it has rightly been stated that the candidates, who would have been eligible in respect of his/her age as on 01.01.2023 & 01.01.2024, are also entitled to apply for the post, if otherwise eligible. 13. The petitioner has not challenged either the validity of relevant rules or terms of the advertisement, but he claims to be eligible age wise by inventing a self made formula with reference to the year in which the vacancies arose. 14. The scheme of the Rules of 2010, as has been discussed hereinabove, as also the terms of the advertisement, nowhere prescribe for determination of eligibility with reference to the date or year of the vacancy but the reference is in the manner provided under sub-clause b of the proviso to clause (i) of Rule 33 of the Rules of 2010. Deemed eligibility is a fiction created under the Rules. The Deemed fiction is referable to the year of recruitment and not to the year in which vacancies arose. There is nothing in the Rules of 2010, either in express terms or by necessary implications, which warrants us to extend the fiction created under the Rules with reference to the date of creation of vacancies. 15. In sum and substance, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner claiming eligibility with reference to the year of vacancy is not tenable in law. 16. 15. In sum and substance, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner claiming eligibility with reference to the year of vacancy is not tenable in law. 16. To put record straight, even on petitioner’s own showing, his date of birth is 02.04.1971, which would mean that he completed the age of fifty years as on 02.04.2021. Even if the upper age limit is 45 years with age relaxation of five years, as provided under the Rules of 2010 is granted, the petitioner would definitely exceed the relaxed upper age limit of 50 years as on 01.01.2025. According to deemed eligibility criteria as provided in Rule 33(i) proviso (b) of the Rules of 2010, if the petitioner would have been eligible in the year in which no examination was held, then only he could claim eligibility. The last process of recruitment was initiated vide advertisement dated 05.01.2021. The upper age limit was required to be determined with reference to 01.01.2022. The petitioner was allowed to participate because in previous year the recruitment had not taken place, therefore, the petitioner, applying the same formula was held eligible. However, in the year 2022 and 2023 new recruitment process was not initiated and only the earlier process of recruitment initiated vide advertisement dated 05.01.2021 was in the process of completion. Therefore, if the petitioner would have been eligible in the year 2022 and 2023, had the examination been held in those years, then alone he could claim eligibility. Applying the Rules of 2010, if the advertisement would have been issued in the year 2022, the eligibility would have been fixed with reference to 01.01.2023. On 01.01.2023, even with relaxation in age of five years, the petitioner had exceeded 50 years of age. Therefore, the benefit of the Rule 33 of the Rules of 2010, as stated hereinabove cannot be extended to the petitioner. He, therefore, has rightly been treated as ineligible having exceeded the upper age limit with all relaxation which is allowable to a candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes category. 17. In view of above consideration, the present writ petition being sans substratum, is dismissed.