JUDGMENT : SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the decision of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), as conveyed by the impugned letter dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure-9), which denies the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Hospital Care Taker under the MBC category. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed that directions may be given to the respondents to consider the petitioners’ candidature and quash the impugned decision, on the ground that the petitioner is eligible under the MBC category, and that she should have been granted age relaxation in accordance with the terms and guidelines laid out in the advertisement dated 23.05.2022 and the subsequent notification dated 23.09.2022. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the respondent-RPSC issued an advertisement dated 23.05.2022 for the recruitment on the post of Hospital Care Takers. The advertisement clearly outlined the total number of vacancies in both TSP and Non-TSP areas, specifically 55 vacancies, of which 50 were in the Non-TSP area. Among the Non- TSP vacancies, 02 posts were reserved for the MBC category. The petitioner, being eligible and in possession of the requisite qualifications, applied under the MBC category and appeared in the selection process. Having secured marks higher than the prescribed cut-off of 28.00 for the MBC category, the petitioner was called for the first round of counseling. 3. However, on 02.09.2024, the RPSC declared the final result, which set the cut-off marks for the MBC General Category at 19.33 for the Non-TSP area. The petitioner contends that despite securing higher marks and being eligible, she was not granted the age relaxation of 10 years as stipulated in the advertisement dated 23.05.2022 and the notification dated 23.09.2022. Nevertheless, the respondent-RPSC’s failure to grant this relaxation resulted in her candidature being improperly rejected. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner further argues that the respondents are legally obligated to consider the petitioner’s candidature based on merit and category, as she has secured higher marks than the cut-off in the MBC category. In light of the above, the petitioner seeks the quashing of the impugned letter and the direction for the consideration of her candidature. 5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner further argues that the respondents are legally obligated to consider the petitioner’s candidature based on merit and category, as she has secured higher marks than the cut-off in the MBC category. In light of the above, the petitioner seeks the quashing of the impugned letter and the direction for the consideration of her candidature. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had stoutly opposed the contentions made by the counsel representing the petitioner and had contended that during the document verification and counseling process held on 03.11.2023, it was found that the petitioner was over-age, as her date of birth is 23.09.1977. According to the guidelines of the advertisement, the candidates must not have attained the age of 40 years as on 01.01.2023. Therefore, on the cutoff date of 01.01.2023, the petitioner was 45 years, 3 months, and 9 days old, thus exceeding the upper age limit. 6. It was consecutively argued that while age relaxation is provided in the advertisement for candidates belonging to certain categories, no such specific provision was made for the MBC Women category, as no reserved seats were allocated for this category. Therefore, the petitioner's plea for age relaxation is untenable. Moreover, the respondents assert that the notification dated 23.09.2022, which the petitioner refers to, was issued subsequent to the advertisement and does not have a retrospective effect. In support of the contentions made insofar reliance was placed upon the dictum encapsulated in DBSAW No. 367/2024 titled as Sakshi Apurva v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., which upheld the non-retrospective effect of notifications issued after the original advertisement. 7. Heard the arguments made by the counsel representing both the parties and considered the submissions and material on record. Upon doing the same, it is deduced that the issue before this Court is whether the petitioner’s candidature can be considered despite her being over-age, and whether the age relaxation provisions under the advertisement and subsequent notifications apply to her. 8. After an assiduous consideration of the facts and legal position, this Court is of the opinion that the petition must be dismissed for the following reasons: 8.1 That the advertisement dated 23.05.2022 and the guidelines appended thereto unambiguously state that candidates must not have attained the age of 40 years as on 01.01.2023. 8. After an assiduous consideration of the facts and legal position, this Court is of the opinion that the petition must be dismissed for the following reasons: 8.1 That the advertisement dated 23.05.2022 and the guidelines appended thereto unambiguously state that candidates must not have attained the age of 40 years as on 01.01.2023. The petitioner’s date of birth is 23.09.1977, and as of the cutoff date of 01.01.2023, she was 45 years, 3 months, and 9 days old, which is clearly beyond the prescribed age limit. For the sake of handiness the said guideline is reproduced herein below: ^ ^dkfeZd ¼d&2½ foHkkx ds ifji= fnukafdr 26@7@2017 ,oa i= fnukafdr 14@9@2017 o 19@2@2021 ds vuqlkj yEcor (vertical) o {kSfrt (horizontal) vkj{k.k ds vUrxZr fdlh J.skh ds fy;s vkjf{kr inks gsrq ;fn fdlh vH;FkhZ }kjk 'kqYd ds vfrfjDr mudks ns; fdlh vU; fj;k;r ¼tSls& vk;q lhek] vad] fQthdy fQVusl vkfn½ dk ykHk fn;k tkrk gS rks mls vukjf{kr fjfDr;ksa ds izfr fopkfjr ugha fd;k tk;sxkA^^ 8.2 That the guidelines appended to the advertisement explicitly outline the eligibility criteria, including the upper age limit. No provisions were made for granting age relaxation to the MBC Women category, as no specific seats/zero seats were reserved under that category. The respondents’ decision to deny age relaxation to the petitioner, who does not fall within the categories entitled to age relaxation, is in accordance with the terms of the advertisement and the established rules. 8.3 That the notification dated 23.09.2022, which the petitioner had referred to for claiming age relaxation, was issued subsequent to the advertisement. As per settled legal principles, a subsequent notification cannot have retrospective effect and cannot alter the eligibility criteria specified in the original advertisement. 9. Withal, this Court draws bolster from the judgment passed in Sakshi Apurva (Supra) , where it was held that a later-issued notification cannot override the provisions of an earlier advertisement. 10. In summation of the aforementioned, it can be noted that the petitioner does not fulfill the age eligibility criteria as per the terms of the advertisement. Moreover, the petitioner is not entitled to age relaxation, as no such provision exists for the MBC Women category. The respondents have acted in-accordance with the advertisement and the applicable rules, and thus, no grounds are made out for interference by this Court. 11. Moreover, the petitioner is not entitled to age relaxation, as no such provision exists for the MBC Women category. The respondents have acted in-accordance with the advertisement and the applicable rules, and thus, no grounds are made out for interference by this Court. 11. For the reasons stated herein above, the present writ petition is dismissed, and the letter dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure-9) is upheld. No order as to costs. 12. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of, in light of the dismissal of the present petition.