SBCWP NO.3551/97. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3551/1997. Sandeep Singh Mahlawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- February 18, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Mamraj Jat on behalf of Shri Praveen Balwada for the petitioner. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by petitioner way back in the year 1997 assailing the validity of Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that he was 24 years of age and therefore he was not considered eligible for appointment because Rule 11 provided 23 as the outer age whereas in the repealed Rules of 1974, upper age limit was 25 years on the date of Ist January of the year i.e. the last date for receipt of the SBCWP NO.3551/97. 2 application form. Similarly, outer age limit in the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 was 33 years. Learned counsel submitted that there is no quarrel in the object sought to be achieved that restriction of only after 23 years cannot be described as a reasonable classification and in fact it is a hostile discrimination. Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that inspite of reduction of upper age limit from 25 to 23 years, hundreds of graduates who are it5hin the age limit are taking the competitive examination. The government took a policy decision to reduce the age because the government wanted younger persons to join the police force keeping in view the law & order situation in the State and combat terrorist activities which require hard duties. Therefore, necessity arise to recruit young and energetic persons to join the police force. Selection in question was competed and the appointments were granted. All the selected candidates joined service. Petitioner has not case to assail the validity of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1989. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I SBCWP NO.3551/97. 3 find that what should be the age limit for a given post, lay within the domain of the rule making authority to decide this controversy. This Court cannot substitute such a age limit on the analogy of a different age limit prescribed in another set of Service Rules. For every case, recruitment has to be made keeping in view the different requirements and it is for the employer to decide as to what is the considered best suitable age limit, for given service. I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil