ORDER : R.Raghunandan Rao, J. 1. Heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Narra, for the Petitioner, the Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Mrs. Tata Venkata Sridevi, the learned Standing Counsel for Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences appearing for respondent No. 3. 2. The petitioner had completed M.B.B.S. degree from Guntur Medical College in the year 2009 and had joined the service of the State and is presently working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, in Medarametla Primary Health Centre, since 01.09.2022. The petitioner, appeared for the NEET-PG examination, conducted on 11.08.2024, and obtained All India Rank 165249. The petitioner sought admission into the P.G. Medical Courses, by claiming reservations available to in-service candidates. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, for the purposes of promoting better medical care, in this State, in the public hospitals and institutions, had reserved certain seats for in-service candidates, namely Medical Officers, who are in the service of the State, in P.G. admissions under the A.P. Medical Colleges, (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 1997 (herein after referred to “P.G. Rules”). The percentage of reservation had been fixed under G.O.Ms. No. 150, dated 11.12.2021 to 30% of seats in clinical and 50% of seats in non-clinical P.G. Medical Courses for in-service candidates. Thereafter, a committee was constituted to go into the question of the percentage of seats that should be reserved for in-service candidates and the terms and conditions under which such reservation should be granted. On the basis of the recommendations made by this committee, G.O.Ms. No. 85, dated 20.07.2024 was issued, whereby the P.G. Rules were amended. 4. One of the amendments, brought in by G.O.Ms. No. 85 was a stipulation that upper age for such in-service candidates, who would be eligible for reservation, is completion of 50 years as on the date of the NEET examination. This upper age limit, was brought in, for the purpose of complying with Rule-f (b) in the impugned G.O. which stipulated that an in-service candidate would have to serve a minimum period of 10 years after completion of the P.G. Courses. This amendment is challenged in the present writ petition by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the earlier Rules prescribed a mandatory service period of 6 years, whereas the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 85 enhanced the service period to 10 years. Apart from it, the penalty amount of Rs. This amendment is challenged in the present writ petition by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the earlier Rules prescribed a mandatory service period of 6 years, whereas the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 85 enhanced the service period to 10 years. Apart from it, the penalty amount of Rs. 25 lakhs, prescribed as a bond condition was enhanced to Rs.50 lakhs. The same would become payable upon failure of the in-service candidate to serve for the required period. The petitioner also assailed the fixation of age limit on the ground that when there was no age limit prescribed in the earlier rules, the amended Rules now prescribe an upper age limit of 50 years. This challenge has come about, as the petitioner is presently 51 years and the stipulation of the upper age limit of 50 years would effectively exclude the petitioner from being given the benefit of in-service reservation. 5. Sri Srinivasa Rao Narra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that such conditions are arbitrary and without any basis. He would further submit that the said conditions have been brought in, midstream, and change of Rules after the process of examination had been initiated is not permissible. 6. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the committee had recommended enhancement of the minimum period of service from six years to ten years and for enhancement of penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs to Rs. 50 lakhs as a measure of ensuring that people of the State are able to obtain the benefit of the enhanced knowledge and skill of the Medical Officers of the State for a longer period. The learned Government Pleader would also point out that the age of superannuation for Medical Officers is 63 years. The P.G. Medical Course is for a period of three years, thus the upper age limit of 50 years came to be fixed. The learned Government Pleader submits that in this view of the matter, the action of the State is not arbitrary, in any manner. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, we do not find any reason to hold that the stipulation of an upper age limit of 50 years and the requirement of serving in the medical service of the State, for a minimum period of ten years, to be arbitrary, in any manner. 8. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, we do not find any reason to hold that the stipulation of an upper age limit of 50 years and the requirement of serving in the medical service of the State, for a minimum period of ten years, to be arbitrary, in any manner. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that G.O.Ms. No. 85 had been brought in, on 20.07.2024, after the notification for the NEET examination had been issued. A batch of Writ Petitions had been filed, by other in-service candidates, challenging G.O.Ms. No. 85. One of the grounds raised in the said batch was the contention that G.O.Ms. No. 85 had been issued after the notification, for conduct of the NEET P.G. Examination 2024 had been issued. This Court, in its Judgment, dated 07.11.2024, in W.P. No. 17652 of 2024 and batch, considered this objection and had held that the issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 85 after the issuance of the notification of conduct of NEET P.G. Examination 2024 would not in any manner amount to change of Rules midstream. This Court had held that the notification issued for conduct of NEET P.G. Examination did not contain any stipulation as to percentage of reservation available to in-service candidates, and as such, reduction of percentage of reservation, would not, in any manner, invalidate such reduction and that it cannot be held that there was a change of Rule midway. The same principle would apply in the present case also, in relation to fixation of upper age limit and increase of the service period for which the in-service candidates are expected to serve. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.