JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - Virendra Swarup Bhatnagar has filed this petition for a relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. According to the petitioner he was appointed as an Assistant Mechanic in the Uttar Pradesh Government Roadways Orgnization in the year 1949. In due course, ha was confirmed in that post in the year 1956. In March/April 1968 the Public Service Com. mission U. P. issued an advertisement inviting applications for 15 posts of Regional Inspector (Technical)/Technical Inspector and Assistant Regional Inspector which were to be filled on the basis of a competitive examination. The advertisement stipulated that candidates for both the posts must not be less than 18 years and more than 35 years on January 1, 1966. It also provided for higher age limit in the case of scheduled caste candidates and for relaxation of maximum age limit in cases of freedom fighters and displaced persons, etc. 3. The petitioner was, on 1st January 1966 as per advertisement by the Public Service Commission over-age by 1 year 2 months 17 days. On 5th May 1966 he submitted an application to the Public Service Commission offering himself as a candidate for the two sets of posts advertised by it. On 7th May 1966 he made a representation to the Transport Commissioner U. P praying that in his case, the upper age limit be relaxed in the interest of fair dealings. Besides the petitioner, two other departmental candidates i.e. Sarvasri Rajeshwar Nigam and Jagdish Singh Chauhan respondents Nos. 4 and 5, who like, wise were over 35 years of age on 1st January 1966 also made applications praying for relaxation of upper age limit in their cases. The State Government, vide its order dated 12th July 1966 exempted the petitioner from upper age limit of 35 years and the Transport Com-missioner communicated the decision of the State Government to the Public Service Commission vide his letter dated 15-7.1966. The Transport Commissioner vide his communications dated 31st May i966 and 8th June 1966 also informed the Public Service Commission about relaxation of age limit in the cases of respondents Nos. 4 and 5. 4. On or about 1st September 1966, the petitioner as well as respondents Nos. The Transport Commissioner vide his communications dated 31st May i966 and 8th June 1966 also informed the Public Service Commission about relaxation of age limit in the cases of respondents Nos. 4 and 5. 4. On or about 1st September 1966, the petitioner as well as respondents Nos. 4 and 5 received information from the Public Service Commission that their applications for recruitment had been rejected as each one of them was over 35 years in age on 1.1.1966. The petitioner, as also respondents Nos. 4 and 5 made representations to the Secretary to Government Transport Department on 8th September 1966, inter alia pleading that a direction be issued to the Public Service Commission requiring it not to cancel their candidature on the ground that they were over-age. They also made similar representations to the Public service Commission. Thereafter on 12.9-1966 the petitioner as well as respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were informed that the Commission had permitted them to appear in the competitive examination for recruitment to the posts advertised by it, on provisional basis. The petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 then took the written and practical examinations but before they could appear in the viva voce examination the Commission on 12th January 1968 informed them that their candidature had been cancelled as they were over-age. The petitioner then made a representation to the State Government against the order of the Commission cancelling his candidature. Subsequently the Transport Commissioner, vide the communication dated 7ch May 1968, informed the petitioner that the State Government had by its order dated 29th March 1968 withdrawn the order dated 12th July 1966 relaxing the age limit in his case. On the same date i, e., on-29th March 1968, the State Government had informed the Public Service Commission-about the withdrawal of its order dated 12 July 1966 relaxing the age limit in the cases-of the petitioner and respondents Nos. 4 and 5. By the same letter the State Government further informed the Commission that so far as respondents hos, 4 and 5 were concerned, the upper age limit had in their cases bean relaxed by it afresh as they were the sons of freedom fighters. The petitioner then made fresh representations to the State Government through proper, channel on 15.5,1968 requesting it to decide his representation dated 27th January 1968. The petitioner then made fresh representations to the State Government through proper, channel on 15.5,1968 requesting it to decide his representation dated 27th January 1968. wherein he had raised a grievance about improper cancellation of his candidature by the Public Service Commission. A copy of that representation was also forwarded to the Public Service Commission. On 2nd of June 1969 the petitioner received a communication from the Public Service-Commission informing him. that the Commission was unable to relax the age bar and that the petitioner should represent his case to the State Government. Thereafter the petitioner sent several: reminders to the State Government with regard to his representation dated 13th. May 1968 and on 18th May 1970 the Deputy Transport Commissioner (Administration) informed him that his representation dated 26th April 1970 had been forwarded to the State Government for necessary action. 5. In the meantime, the Public Service Commission, without interviewing the petitioner, declared the results for recruitment to the 15 posts advertised by it. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and others were declared successful. Out of the 15 posts for which the Public Service Commission had invited applications in March/April 1966 only 14 posts could be filled up by it. Thus there remained one vacancy, on 10th September 1970 the petitioner made fresh representation to the Secretary U. P. Transport Department- as also to the Chairman Public Service Commission U. P. But those representations remained unreplied and on 31st August 1971 the Public Service Commission issued fresh advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to certain posts of Regional Inspector Technical/Technical Inspector and (2) Asstt. Regional Inspector Technical in the Transport Organisation. One post which remained unfilled as a result of the earlier examination, was also sought to be filled on the basis of the examination that was to follow the advertisement dated 31-8-1971, As the post on which the petitioner could be accommodated in ease his representation was accepted was likely to be filled up he made yet one more attempt for obtaining relief by making representations dated 4.11.1971 to the State Government and the Public Service Commission. However, neither the State Government nor the Public Service Commission, gave any reply to his representations. 6. However, neither the State Government nor the Public Service Commission, gave any reply to his representations. 6. The petitioner then moved the present writ petition on 17-1-1972 praying for a suitable direction, order or writ quashing the order of the Public Service Commission dated 12th January 1968 cancelling his candidature as also the decision of the State Government dated 29th March 1968 withdrawing its earlier order dated 12th July 1966 whereby it had exempted the petitioner from the upper age limit mentioned in the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission in March/April 1968. He also prayed for a direction, order or writ quashing the result declared by the Public Service Commission on 7th July 1970 in so far as respondents nos. 4 and 5 were concerned. In the end the petitioner prayed for a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner a3 duly qualified candidate for the post of Regional Inspector Technical/Technical Inspector, Assistant Regional Inspector Technical in the Transport Organization of U.P. as also for directing the Public Service Commission to interview the petitioner for the above post and thereafter to declare the result of the examination in which he had already appeared. After filing the writ petition the petitioner on 7-8-1973 succeeded in obtaining an interim order from this Court directing the Public Service Commission to interview the petitioner as well and by the same order the Court further directed that the respondents could subject to the ultimate order that may be made in the petition make appointments to tho various posts advertised by them in the year 1971. 7. The State of U.P. Transport Commissioner and the Public Service Commission have put in appearance and have contested this petition. According to them the representation of the petitioner requesting exemption from upper age limit was finally rejected by the State Government and its decision was communicated to the petitioner by the Transport Commissioner on 16th July 1968. The petition filed in the year 1972 was accordingly belated and deserved to be rejected on that ground. They also justified the order of the Commission dated 12-7-1968 cancelling petitioner's candidature on the ground that there was no provision in the advertisement issued by it for relaxing age limit for a candidate like the petitioner. The petition filed in the year 1972 was accordingly belated and deserved to be rejected on that ground. They also justified the order of the Commission dated 12-7-1968 cancelling petitioner's candidature on the ground that there was no provision in the advertisement issued by it for relaxing age limit for a candidate like the petitioner. They also attempted to justify the order of the State Government dated 29-2.1968 by which it withdrew its earlier order dated 12-7-1968 whereby it had exempted the petitioner from the upper age limit mentioned in the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission. 8. So far as the question of delay in presenting the writ petition is concerned, the petitioner denied that the order of the State Government finally rejecting his representation was communicated to him on 6th July 19u8. As a matter of fact the Dy. Transport Commissioner bad vide his letter dated 18th May 1970, informed the petitioner that his representation had been forwarded to the State Government and that he would be informed of the order passed thereon in due course. This must have generated a belief in the mind of the petitioner that the matter was receiving consideration by the State Government. If the petitioner knew that his representation had already been finally rejected by the State Government surely he would have filed the writ petition much earlier. It appears to us that throughout the petitioner had been active in trying to convince the State Government about his case and that he had been labouring under the impression that the State Government was actually engaged in considering his representations. Further the delay in presenting this writ petition has not resulted in any such change in a situation that may render the consideration of petitioner's case on merits, inequitable. There is also nothing on the record to show that in case the petitioner is, at this stage granted the relief to which be is entitled it would cause any injustice or undue hardship to any one else. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to throw out petitioner's case merely on the ground of delay in presenting the petition. 9. Facts mentioned in the writ petition and the counter affidavit indicate that the Public Service Commission had in March/April 1966 advertised that recruitment was going to be made for 15 posts of Regional Inspector Technical, Technical Inspector and Assistant Regional Inspector Technical. 9. Facts mentioned in the writ petition and the counter affidavit indicate that the Public Service Commission had in March/April 1966 advertised that recruitment was going to be made for 15 posts of Regional Inspector Technical, Technical Inspector and Assistant Regional Inspector Technical. Only 14 of these posts could be filled at that time and one post remained vacant. In that selection respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were selected after the upper age limit in their cases had been relaxed on the ground that they were sons of freedom fighters. The petitioner has in this petition challenged the validity of the order exempting them from the upper age limit. He urges that their selection was vitiated as they were above the age limit prescribed in the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission. In our opinion the order exempting respondents Nos. 3 and 4 from the upper age limit did not affect any legal right of the petitioner which in this case merely was to have his case considered for recruitment to one of the fifteen posts advertised by the Commission. Recruitment of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 could affect petitioner's legal right only if it had the effect of impairing the chances of petitioner's selection. As according to the petitioner's own case one of the posts advertised by the Public Service Commission in the year 1966, is still available to accommodate him in case this petition succeeds on merits it is obvious that selection of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 after exempting them from the upper age limit did not have the effect of impairing the chances of petitioner's selection in any manner. We are, therefore, of opinion that the petitioner even if he succeeds in making out a case that his candidature as well as the order exempting him from the upper age limit mentioned in the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission in March/April 1966 were in order no ease for interfering with the selection of Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 at the instance of the petitioner has been made. 10. It is not disputed that the State Government had by its order dated 12th July 1936 exempted the petitioner from the upper age limit mentioned in the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission in March/April 1966. 3 and 4 at the instance of the petitioner has been made. 10. It is not disputed that the State Government had by its order dated 12th July 1936 exempted the petitioner from the upper age limit mentioned in the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission in March/April 1966. The Public Service Commission cancelled the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that there was no provision in the advertisement issued by it (Annexure VII to the writ petition) for relaxing the upper age limit in a case like that of the petitioner. The State Government, had withdrawn its order dated. 12 July 1966, exempting the petitioner from upper age limit on the ground that there was no provision under which departmental candidates could be exempted from the upper age limit. It is also clear that the petitioner had sought exemption from age limit on the ground that although the post advertised by the Public Service Commission had been existing for a number of years no competitive examination to fill in those posts took place till the petitioner became overage. He was, therefore, deprived of an opportunity to compete for those posts. In the circumstances it was in the interest of fair dealing that he should after relaxing the upper a(e limit in his case, be given an opportunity to compete in the examinations. 11. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration in thi3 case is as to whether the Public Service Commission was justified in cancelling petitioner's candidature on the ground that the advertisement made by it did not provide for relaxing the age limit in a case like that of the petitioner and whether the State Government was justified in with, drawing its earlier order exempting the petitioner from the upper age limit on the ground that there was no provision for relaxing age limit in case of departmental candidates. If it is found that the State Government had withdrawn its order exempting the petitioner from upper age limit and the Public Service Commission cancelled the petitioner's candidature under some misconception then the impugned orders will have to be quashed. 12. If it is found that the State Government had withdrawn its order exempting the petitioner from upper age limit and the Public Service Commission cancelled the petitioner's candidature under some misconception then the impugned orders will have to be quashed. 12. It is true that in the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission in the month of March/April 1966 (Annexure I to the petition) there was provision for relaxing the upper age limit in cases of certain classes of candidates and that the case of the-petitioner did not fall, in any of those classes. However, in exercise of his powers under Section 241 (1) (b) of the Government of India Act 1935, Governor of United Provinces, ;vide notification No. 29 (5) 11/175.35.139 dated; 31st July 1941 (Annexure III to the writ petition) promulgated the following rules regarding relaxation of age limit for recruitment to civil service or civil posts under the| Crown in connection with the affairs of United Provinces: "(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any rule regulating the maximum, or minimum age of recruitment to a service or post in connexion with the affairs of the United Provinces, the age limits may be relaxed in favour of any candidate or clas3 of candidates only if (i) in eases in which the appointing authority is the Governor he, or (ii) in other cases, the head of the Department consider this necessary in the interest of fair dealing or in the public interest. (2) In this rule `Head 'of Department' means the authority who has been declared to be head of the Department for the purposes of the Fundamental Rules, and of the Subsidiary and Supplementary Rules made by the Provincial Government, and for the purposes of the Fundamental Rules and of the Subsidiary and Supplementary Rules made by the Provincial Government, and includes a District and Sessions Judge. (3) In case in which recruitment is made through the Public Service Commission, United Provinces, the Commission shall be consulted before the rule is relaxed". 13. It is not disputed that the aforesaid notification continued to be operative even after coming into force of the Constitution and that it has not bean rescinded so far. This notification contains a rule which has a statutory basis. 13. It is not disputed that the aforesaid notification continued to be operative even after coming into force of the Constitution and that it has not bean rescinded so far. This notification contains a rule which has a statutory basis. It enables the authorities mentioned therein to relax the upper age limit in favour of any candidate or class of candidates if they consider it necessary to do so in the interest of fair dealing etc. It makes it clear that the power mentioned therein can be exercised even in cases where the rules regulating maximum and minimum age for recruitment to a service or post make a contrary provision. These rules do not for their operation, depend upon reservation of the power stated therein, in the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission. Accordingly even if the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission did not provide for relaxing the upper age limit in a case like that of the petitioner, it was open to the State Government to relax the same in exercising of its power under the aforesaid notification. The State Government was, there, fore, not justified in withdrawing its order dated 12.7.1966 on the ground that it had no power to make it. It is nobody case that condition precedent for exercising the power under Rule (1) of the notification viz. satisfaction of the State Government that relaxing the age limit in favour of the petitioner, would be in the interest of fair dealing did not exist. 14. Learned Standing Counsel contended that according to rule (3) contained in the aforesaid notification, in cases, where recruitment is to be made through the Public Service Commission relaxation of age can fee granted only after consulting the Commission. He urged that it appears that the State Government cancelled its order dated 12th July 1966 because before issuing the same it had not consulted the Public Service Commission. The order dated 12th July 1966 having not been issued in accordance with the provisions contained in 1941 notification the State Government was justified in withdrawing the same. We are unable to accept this submission. There is absolutely no material in the affidavits filed in the case to indicate that the State [Government had made the Order dated 12th July 1966, without consulting the Commission. We are unable to accept this submission. There is absolutely no material in the affidavits filed in the case to indicate that the State [Government had made the Order dated 12th July 1966, without consulting the Commission. Moreover, the order of the State Government, a copy of which has been filed as: Annexure VIII to the writ petition, does not mention that the order dated 12th July 1966 was being withdrawn inasmuch as it had been made without consulting the Public Service Commission. Instead, it stated that it-was being withdrawn as there appeared to be no provision under which any relaxation image limit could be granted to departmental candidates. As stated earlier, the notification issued by the Governor, in the year 1941, clearly authorised the State Government to exempt a candidate from upper age limit if it considered it necessary to be so in the interest of fair dealings. It is, therefore, clear that the State Government passed the order dated 29th March 1968, withdrawing its earlier order, dated 12th July 1966 under a complete apprehension. The order dated 29th March 1968 therefore, deserves to be quashed. Once the order dated 29-3-1968 is quashed the order dated 12th July 1966 would revive with, full vigour and it will have to be taken that the petitioner had been properly exempted by the State Government from the upper age limit mentioned in the advertisement issued in March/April 1905. The upper age limit having been relaxed in the case of the petitioner, there would be no escape from the position that the order of the Public Service] Commission dated I2th January 1968 cancelling his candidature on the ground that he was] not qualified to appear in the competitive examination would also fall. 15. In the circumstances the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The order of the Public Service Commission dated 12th January 1963 cancelling the candidature of the petitioner and that of the State Government dated 29th March 196S withdrawing its earlier order dated 12th July 1966 are quashed. The Public Service Commission is directed to proceed to consider petitioner's case for recruitment to the left over vacancy advertised in March/April 1966 and to declare petitioner's result in that regard in accordance with law.