JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner has prayed in this writ petition that the decision of, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to reject his candidature for selection and appointment on the post of Excavation and Exploration Officer in the Rajasthan Archaeology and Museum Service be declared illegal. The respondents be directed to consider his case for appointment as Excavation and Exploration Officer and they be directed to give him all consequential benefits. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, whose date of birth is 15.12.42, joined Government service as Draftsman in the Year 1962. He was subsequently selected for this post and was placed on probation of two years vide order dated, 25.8.67 of the Director, Archaeology and Museum, Rajasthan, Jaipur. He was confirmed on this post after successful completion of the period of probation. He was promoted as Senior Draftsman under Rule 7 (3) read with Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1960, by an order dated, 7.8.74 of the Director, Archaeology and Museum Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Later on, by an order dated, 1.6.79 issued by the Director, he has been declared as confirmed Senior Draftsman w.e.f. 1.3.79. 3. The petitioner has stated that he was Matriculate at the time of entry in the service. During the period of service he passed Higher examinations. He did his M.A. in Ancient Indian History from the University of Rajasthan in the year 1981. He has also acquired sufficient experience in the field of exploration excavation and mapping. He has produced certificates of the authority showing that he possesses experience of excavation and exploration. By an order dated, 14.9.81, the petitioner was given additional duties of the post of Excavation Officer. 4. According to the petitioner the post of Senior Draftsman is the highest post in the subordinate service of the Archaelogy and Museum Department. Under the Rajasthan Archaeology and Museum Service Rules, 1960 (For short 1960 Rules), a Senior Draftsman is not eligible to be promoted to the State Service by way of promotion. Thus, there is no chance of promotion of a person holding the post of Senior Draftsman. The only source by which he can enter the State Service is by way of selection for direct recruitment. 5. A post of Excavation and Exploration Officer is lying vacant in the department since 1975. Thus, there is no chance of promotion of a person holding the post of Senior Draftsman. The only source by which he can enter the State Service is by way of selection for direct recruitment. 5. A post of Excavation and Exploration Officer is lying vacant in the department since 1975. No effort has been made by the departmental authorities to fill this post. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated, 16.11.83 for filling up the post of Excavation and Exploration Officer alongwith other posts. The last date for submission of application was fixed as 30.12.83. Government servants holding a substantive post in Government Service were treated eligible in case he/ she did not cross the age of 40 years as on 1.1.84. Further case of the petitioner is that even before the post had been advertised by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission he had made a representation to the Government for relaxation of the upper age limit, because, the post had not been advertised since, 1975 and large number of persons like him had crossed the upper age limit. This representation of the petitioner alongwith similar other representations were forwarded to the Education Secretary with the recommendation that the maximum age limit of departmental candidates be relaxed and be kept as 45 years. A letter in this regard was written by the Director, Archaeology and Museum Department on 24.8.83 (Ex.13). A note was also sent by the Director Archaeology and Museum Department to the Education Secretary, wherein, he recommended that for 14 Government servants the maximum age limit be relaxed upto 45 years. The Dy. Secretary, Education (Group-IV) Department, wrote a letter dated, 19.9.83 to the Director, Archaeology and Museum wherein it was expressed that it was not possible to amend the rules regarding the age prescribed for direct recruitment, but, if any person had suffered unnecessary injury then his case for relaxation of age can be considered. In reply to this letter, the Director Archaeology and Museum, vide his letter dated, 15.1.83 recommended the case of the petitioner and Smt. Madhuri Dravid. He gave detailed particulars of both these persons in his letter dated, 19.1.83. In reply to this letter, the Director Archaeology and Museum, vide his letter dated, 15.1.83 recommended the case of the petitioner and Smt. Madhuri Dravid. He gave detailed particulars of both these persons in his letter dated, 19.1.83. Another letter dated, 25.11.83 was sent by the Director, Archaeology and Museum, to the Education Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, In this letter he also made reference to amendment dated 27.12.78 made in the rules, whereby the Government has been empowered to relax the rules in the case of hardship. The Section Officer in the Education Department wrote a letter dated, 1.12.83 to the Director, Archaeology and Museum Department and asked for the information for the year in which the petitioner and Smt. Madhuri Dravid had acquired academic qualifications. These informations were furnished by the Director, Archaeology and Museum Department vide his letter dated, 3.12.83. Some more informations were sought for by the Education Department vide its letter dated, 18.1.84 and all these informations were furnished by the Director, Archaeology and Museum Department, vide his letter dated, 20.1.84. The Government has, however, finally sent a letter dated, 20.5.84 to the Director, Archaeology and Museum Department, wherein it has been mentioned that the case of the petitioner and Smt. Madhuri Dravid was sent to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for relaxation in the upper age limit, but, the R.P.S.C. has not agreed with the proposal of giving relaxation. The Government has, therefore, rejected the proposal made by the Director, Archaeology and Museum Department. The Director, in turn informed the petitioner vide letter dated, 27.6.84 that the relaxation in the upper age limit cannot be given in favour of the petitioner. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission has, on its part, rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he is not within the age limit. 6. The petitioner has then referred to an amendment made in various service Rules vide notification dated, 27.12.78, whereby the Government has been empowered to relax the provisions relating to age and experience with the concurrence of Department of Personnel and in consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Then petitioner's case is that there was every justification for relaxation of the upper age limit in his case. More so, when no one has been found suitable by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 1983. Then petitioner's case is that there was every justification for relaxation of the upper age limit in his case. More so, when no one has been found suitable by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 1983. He has stated that the Public Service Commission has altogether ignored his experience and also the fact that he has been holding the charge of the post for sufficiently a long time. 7. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents No. 1 to 3 have admitted the facts relating to the service particulars of the petitioner. It has been admitted that the petitioner was directed to perform the duties of Exploration and Excavation Officer in addition to his own duties. It has also been admitted that the post of Excavation and Exploration Officer is lying vacant since 1975. It has then been stated that the short-term advertisements were issued on 25.10.75, 6.11.75 and 28.2.79 for filling up that post. However, the posts could not be filled for one or the other reason. In the year 1978, Rajasthan Public Service Commission was requested to advertise the post. However, the Commission in its turn, wrote to the Government vide letter dated, 4.11.78 that the educational qualifications etc. be specifically prescribed for the post. The Government then prescribed the academic qualification etc. The post was endadred in the rules of 1960 w.e.f. 25.8.1982 and, as such, the posts could not be advertised earlier. The petitioner passed M.A. in Indian History in June, 1981 and, therefore, till that time, he was not eligible to be considered for appointment as Excavation and Exploration Officer. Moreover, after endadrement of the post in the year 1982, it was advertised in the year 1983. By that time, the petitioner had become over age. The petitioner did make representation for relaxation of the age limit from 40 to 45 years. His representation was considered at various levels. But, ultimately, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission did not agree to the proposal of relaxation of age and the petitioner was informed about the decision of the Government through the Director. It has been stated that no one was found suitable by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the post of Excavation and Exploration Officer. Thereafter, the Government took a decision to abolish the post and order was issued for this purpose on 4.10.85. It has been stated that no one was found suitable by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the post of Excavation and Exploration Officer. Thereafter, the Government took a decision to abolish the post and order was issued for this purpose on 4.10.85. The post was again created vide Government order dated, 29th July 1986. Rajasthan Public Service Commission again issued advertisement No. 7/88-89 on 30th March, 1989 and the petitioner applied against this advertisement. Amendment dated, 27.12.78 made in various Service Rules, has been placed on record as Annex. R/2 and it has been urged that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the provisions regarding relaxation in the upper age limit, because, after the matter had been examined at various levels, the RPSC has not agreed to the proposal of relaxation in upper age limit. 8. The first argument advanced by Shri R.C. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the post of Excavation and Exploration Officer had become available in the year 1975. It ought to have been advertised in the year 1975. At that time, the petitioner was within age limit. The Government did not advertise the post for years together. This failure on the part of the Government cannot be a ground for treating the petitioner as ineligible, because, he has crossed the upper age limit of 40 years in the year 1983. Shri Joshi submitted that the year-wise determination of vacancies is obligatory for the competent authority,namely, the Government and its failure cannot be a ground for denial of consideration of the candidature of the petitioner. 9. Miss Sumitra Goyal, Dy. Government Advocate, on the other hand, argued that the post of Excavation and Exploration Officer was not a cadre post till 25.8.82. Therefore, this post could not have been filled till 25.8.82 with reference to the Rules of 1960. The provision regarding year-wise determination of vacancies cannot, therefore, be pressed into service on behalf of the petitioner. 10. After having given my consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find myself unable to accept the same. It is true that the post of Excavation and Exploration Officer became available in the year 1975, but, it is also true that it was an ex-cadre post till 24.8.82. 10. After having given my consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find myself unable to accept the same. It is true that the post of Excavation and Exploration Officer became available in the year 1975, but, it is also true that it was an ex-cadre post till 24.8.82. The rules of 1960 were amended vide notification dated, 25.8.82 and with effect from that day, this post became a part of the rules of 1960. For filling of ex-cadre posts, it was open to the Government to have applied any method of recruitment. The only limitation on the discretion of the Government was the requirement of compliance of the constitutional provisions-contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Rule regarding year-wise determination of vacancies which has been incorporated in the rules of 1960, could not have been applied to ex-cadre post of Excavation and Exploration Officer. It was not obligatory for the Government to have made determination of vacancies against the post of Excavation and Exploration Officer in the year 1975, 1976 and so on and so forth. It is also borne out from the record that the Government had not even prescribed the qualifications for this post till 1978 and, precisely for this reason, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission had not agreed with the proposal of the Government to advertise the post in the year 1978. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission had specifically written to the Government that the post can be advertised only after qualifications etc. are prescribed. The qualifications, which the Government ultimately prescribed, were not possessed by the petitioner till 1981. Therefore, before the year 1981, the petitioner was not even entitled to be considered for appointment as Excavation and Exploration Officer. At any fate, when the encadrement of the post was done on 25.8.82, vacancy against that post could have been determined only for the year 1983-84. The determination of vacancy could be done after encadrement of the post on 1st April. The post had been encadred on 25th August, 1982, there could be no determination of vacancy as on 1.4.82. Obviously, the vacancy could not have been filled for the year 1982-83. Since, the determination of vacancy could be made for the first time as on 1st April, 1983, the age limit could also have been taken into consideration at the earliest with reference to 1.4.83. Obviously, the vacancy could not have been filled for the year 1982-83. Since, the determination of vacancy could be made for the first time as on 1st April, 1983, the age limit could also have been taken into consideration at the earliest with reference to 1.4.83. By that time, the petitioner had already crossed the the age limit of 40 years, which is applicable to Government servants. It cannot, therefore, be said that any legal right of the petitioner has been infringed on account of alleged failure of the State Government to determine the vacancy prior to 1983-84. As I have already found, it was not the statutory obligation of the Government to determine the vacancy year-wise in an ex-cadre post and, so far as the petitioner is concerned, he acquired academic qualifications only in the year 1981. 11. The second contention of Shri Joshi is that the Government has committed a serious error in rejecting the representation of the petitioner for relaxation of age. Shri Joshi argued that his representation has been turned down only on the ground that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission has not agreed to the proposal of relaxation. He further submitted that it was for the Government to have decided the question of relaxation on the basis of the facts submitted by the petitioner. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission was only required to be consulted. The Public Service Commission could not have been given the final authority to determine the question relating to relaxation in the upper age limit. The Public Service Commission was only required to be consulted by the Government and mere refusal of the Public Service Commission to agree to the proposal of the Government did not have the effect of veto on the proposal submitted by the Director, Archaeology and Museum. Shri Joshi submitted that the rule making authority has deliberately used two phrases for the purpose of deciding the question of relaxation of upper age limit. While, concurrence of Department of Personnel is required, the Public Service Commission is only to be consulted. Therefore, it was for the Government in Administrative Department to have taken a final decision of its own. In case the Department of Personnel concurred and mere refusal of the Public Service Commission to concur with the proposal cannot have the effect of the rejection of the proposal submitted by the Administrative Department. Therefore, it was for the Government in Administrative Department to have taken a final decision of its own. In case the Department of Personnel concurred and mere refusal of the Public Service Commission to concur with the proposal cannot have the effect of the rejection of the proposal submitted by the Administrative Department. Miss Sumitra Goyal, learned Dy. Government Advocate, argued that the decision for not granting relaxation in the upper age limit beyond 40 years has been taken by the Government after due deliberation. It lies within the sole discretion of the Government to grant relaxation or not to grant such relaxation in the upper age limit prescribed under the rules. The petitioner cannot claim that any one of his legal or constitutional right has been infringed on account of refusal of the Government to grant relaxation in the upper age limit of 40 years. 12. In order to decide this question, it will be proper to refer to the relevant rule by which power has been conferred in the matter of relaxation of Rules. Rule 35 "Power to relax rules : In exceptional cases where the Administrative Department of the Government is satisfied that operation of the rules relating to age or regarding requirement of experience for recruitment causes undue hardship in any particular case or where the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to age or experience of any persons, it may with the concurrence of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and in consultation with the Commission by orders dispense with or relax the relevant provisions of these rules to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner, provided that such relaxation shall not be less favourable than the provisions already contained in these rules such cases of relaxation shall be referred to the R.P.S.C. by the D.O.P. & A.R. (Deptt. of Pers. A Group-II)" 13. of Pers. A Group-II)" 13. An analysis of this rule shows that in exceptional cases, if the administrative department is satisfied that operation of the rules relating to age, causes undue hardship in any particular case or where the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to relax any of the provisions of the rules with respect to age, it may dispense with or relax the relevant provisions of the rules. This can, however, be done with the concurrence of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and in consultation with the Commission. It is, therefore, clear that the power to grant relaxation vests in the administrative department of the Government. For exercise of this power concurrence of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms is to be taken and at the same time, Rajasthan Public Service Commission is to be consulted. The provision regarding consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission has been added apparently in the context of Article 320 (3) of the Constitution of India. 14. The important point which arises for determination is, as to whether consultation with the Rajasthan Public Service Commission can be treated as consent of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Can it be said that the Administrative Department of the Government is not entitled to grant relaxation if the R.P.S.C. has not agreed to the proposal of the Administrative Department ? In order to answer this question, in the first place, it is to be noted that the rule making authority has used two phrases, namely, "concurrence" and "consultation" in the relevant rule. The word "concur" has been defined in Balack's Law Dictionary (Revised IVth Edition) as under : "To agree; accord, act together; consent." The word "concurrence" has been defined as; "The possession, by two or more persons, of equal rights or privileges over the same subject matter". In the New Oxford Illustrated Dictionary (Vol.1), the word "concur" has been assigned the following meanings : "Co-incide, cooperate, agree, express agreement". The word 'consult' has been described as; "Take counsel with, seek information or advice from;" The word "consultation" has been defined as an act of "consulting", deliberation, conference." 15. The distinction between the words "concurrence"/ 'consent' and 'consultation' came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Shankal Chand Himmatlal Seth, 1977 (4) SCC 193 . The word 'consult' has been described as; "Take counsel with, seek information or advice from;" The word "consultation" has been defined as an act of "consulting", deliberation, conference." 15. The distinction between the words "concurrence"/ 'consent' and 'consultation' came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Shankal Chand Himmatlal Seth, 1977 (4) SCC 193 . That matter related to interpretation to Article 222 of the Constitution of India in the context of a transfer of a Judge of the High Court. In his judgment Chandrachud J. held that, if the consent of the High Court was necessary, the Constitution would have said so. The word "consent" is conspicuously absent in Article 222 (1), whereas, whenever it was intended that such consent was necessary, the various provisions of the Constitution contained that word. He further observed that,i the word 'consult' implies a conference of two or more persons or an impact of two or more minds in respect of a topic in order to enable it to evolve a correct or atleast a satisfactory conciliation; In order that two minds may be able to confer and produce a mutual shape it is essential that each must have for itself consider full and identical facts which at once constitute both the source and foundation of the final decision. 16. Krishna layer J. with whom Fazl Ali J. agreed, proceeded to observe : "The key words in this Article are "consultation" and 'transfer'. What is consultation, dictionary-wise and popular parlance-wise ? It implies taking counsel, seeking advice. An element of deliberation together is also read into the concept. To consult" is to apply to for guidance, direction or authentic, information, to ask the advice of as to consult a lawyer; to discuss something together; to deliberate ( Hewey v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. ) The word "consult" means to seek the opinion or advice of another; to take counsel; to deliberate together to confer; to apply for information or instruction, ( C.I.R. v. John A. Wathen Distillery Co. ). "Consult" means to seek opinion or advice of another; to take counsel; to deliberate together; to confer; to deliberate on; to discuss; to take counsel to bring about; devise; contrive; to ask advice of; to seek the information of; to apply to for information or instruction; to refer to. Teplisky v. City of New York. ). "Consult" means to seek opinion or advice of another; to take counsel; to deliberate together; to confer; to deliberate on; to discuss; to take counsel to bring about; devise; contrive; to ask advice of; to seek the information of; to apply to for information or instruction; to refer to. Teplisky v. City of New York. Stroud's Law Lexicon defines 'consultation' thus : Consultation (New Towns Act, 1946 (9 & 10 Geo. 6c. 680) Section 1 (1). "Consultation with any local authorities". Consultation means that, on the one side, the Minister must supply sufficient information to the local authority to enable them to tender advice, and, on the other hand, a sufficient opportunity must be given to the local authority to tender advice" We consult a physician or a lawyer, an enger or an architect, and thereby we mean not casual but serious, deliberate seeking of informed advice, competent guidance and considered opinion. Necessarily, all the materials in the possession of one who consults must be unreservedly placed before the cousultee. Further, a reasonable opportunity for getting information, taking other steps and getting prepared for tendering effective and meaningful advice must be given to him. The consultant, in turn, must take the matter seriously since the subject is of grave importance. The parties affected are high-level functionaries and the impact of erroneous judgment can be calamitous. Therefore, it follows that the President must communicate to the Chief Justice all the material he has and the course he proposes. The Chief Justice, in turn, must collect necessary information through responsible channels or directly, acquaint himself with the requisite data, deliberate on the information he possesses and proceed in the interests of the administration of justice to give the President such counsel of action as he thinks will further the public interest, especially, the cause of the justice system. However, consultation is different from consentaneity. They may discuss but may disagree; they may confer but not concur. And in any case the consent of the Judge involved is not a factor specially within the range of Article 222." 17. The same question arose in S.P. Gupta and others v. President of India and others, AIR 1982 SC 149 . However, consultation is different from consentaneity. They may discuss but may disagree; they may confer but not concur. And in any case the consent of the Judge involved is not a factor specially within the range of Article 222." 17. The same question arose in S.P. Gupta and others v. President of India and others, AIR 1982 SC 149 . A seven Judges bench of the Apex Court expressed divergently on several issues, but while dealing with the scope of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, the majority consisting of Bhagwati, S.M.F. Ali Desai and Venkat-Ramiah, J J. held that, the opinion of the Chief Justice of India has no primacy. Gupta, Tuljapurkar and Pathak JJ. held that, opinion of the Chief justice deserves primacy, though, it does not operate as veto. Bhagwati J. referred to the scheme of Article 217 and then observed; " If primacy were to be given to the opinion of the Chief Justice of India, It would, in effect or substance, amount to concurrence; because, giving primacy means, his opinion must prevail over that of the Chief justice of the High Court and Governor of the State, which means that the Central Government must accept his opinion. But, as we pointed out earlier, it is only consultation and not concurrence of the Chief Justice of India that is provided in d. (1) of Article 217. "After referring to the speech of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Bhagwati J. observed. "It is, therefore, clear that where there is difference of opinion amongst the constitutional functionaries in regard to appointment of a Judge in a High Court, the opinion of none of the constitutional functionaries is entitled to primacy, but after considering the opinion of each of the constitutional functionaries and giving it due weight, the Central Government is entitled to come to its own decision as to which opinion it should accept in deciding whether or not to appoint the particular person as a Judge. So also where a Judge of the Supreme Court is to be appointed, the Chief Justice of India is required to be consulted, but again it is not concurrence but only consultation and the Central Government is not bound to act in accordance with the opinion of the Chief Justice of India." By and large, similar opinion was expressed by the majority of the Judges. Even those, who constituted the minority opinion, expressed the view that the opinion of the Chief Justice cannot be placed at the pedestal of the veto. 18. In A.N. D'Silva v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1130 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court were considering the case of the disciplinary action against the Government servant. In that case, the Union Public Service Commission was consulted before imposition of the punishment. An argument was advanced that the opinion expressed by the Union Public Service Commission should have prevailed over the findings of the Inquiry Officer. While repelling this argument, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held: "the president is, by Article 320 of the Constitution, required to consult the Public Service Commission, but, the President is not bound by the advice of the Commission." 19. In the context of Article 320, there have been several decisions of the Supreme Court wherein it has been held that consultation of the Public Service Commission is only directory and absence of consultation does not have the effect of vitiating the action taken. 20. In State of U.P. v. Manmodan Lal, AIR 1957 SC 912 , a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that, 'Irregularity of Consultation with the Public Service Commission does not entitle a public servant to seek relief from the Court. The provision regarding consultation was held to be directory by the Supreme Court. 21. In G.S. Lamba v. Union of India, 1985 (2) SCC 644 , their Lordships relied on the decision in the case of Manmodan Lal (supra) and also in (6) Montreal Street Railway Co. v. Normandin, AIR 1917 PC 142 and observed : "Assuming there was failure to consult the Union Public Service Commission before exercising the power to relax the mandatory quota rule and further assuming that the posts in the grade were within the purview of the Commission and accepting for the time being that the Commission was not consulted before the power to relax the rule was exercised, yet the action taken would not be vitiated nor would it furnish any help to Union of India which itself cannot take any advantage of its failure to consult the Commission. 22. In large number of decisions, the principles laid down in Manbodhanlal Srivastava's case have been followed. 23. 22. In large number of decisions, the principles laid down in Manbodhanlal Srivastava's case have been followed. 23. From the above quoted dictionary meanings and the interpretation placed on the words 'concurrence' and 'consultation' it is clear that the word 'consultation' cannot be treated as the same thing as 'concurrence'. It cannot be equated with the word 'consent'. If the rule making authority intended that power of relaxation of the rules will be open to be exercised only with the consent or agreement of the Public Service Commission, the word 'concurrence' would have been used instead of the word 'consultation'. The very fact that the rule making authority did not choose to lay down the requirement of concurrence of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission as a condition of exercise of power for relaxation of the rules, it is not possible to say that notwithstanding the clear intention of the Legislature the Courts should treat the concurrence or consent of the Public Service Commission as sine-qua-non for the exercise of power of relaxation of the rules relating to age or requirement of experience. The only thing which is required to be done by the Administrative Department is to seek concurrence of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. So far as the Commission is concerned, the Administrative Department is required to send all the papers to the Commission and seek its opinion on the proposal of relaxation of the rules. Even if, the Commission does not agree with the proposal, the Government is free to grant relaxation of the rules, once it feels satisfied that the case if of an exceptional nature in which hardship will be suffered by the candidate if relaxation is not given. The Government cannot decline to exercise its discretion of relaxation of the rules only on the ground that the Public Service Commission has declined the agree with its proposal. The Government has to exercise its own discretion and take a decision after an objective consideration of all the facts and circumstances. 24. So far as the present case is concerned, it is apparent from a bare look of para 12 of the reply that, because, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission did not agree with the proposal of the Government, the Government refused to grant relaxation in the requirement of age. 24. So far as the present case is concerned, it is apparent from a bare look of para 12 of the reply that, because, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission did not agree with the proposal of the Government, the Government refused to grant relaxation in the requirement of age. That decision of the Government was in my opinion, clearly erroneous and it was founded on mis-conceived assumption that the Government was bound by the opinion of the Public Service Commission. 25. Learned Dy. Government Advocate has given out that the post the now been re-advertised, because, neither in pursuance of the advertisement of 1983 nor in pursuance of the advertisement of 1989 the selection has been made. The suitable candidates have not become available. Therefore the only direction which can now be given is that the Government shall reconsider the question of relaxation of upper age limit in case of the petitioner and similarly situated persons and take a fresh decision on that question. If the petitioner is treated eligible by relaxation of age, he will be entitled to be considered for selection for the post of direct recruitment. 26. This writ petition, therefore, succeeds in part. Exhibits 22 and 23 are declared illegal and are quashed. The Government is directed to reconsider the issue relating to relaxation of rules pertaining to the age and on an objective consideration of the material available, it shall take a fresh decision in the light of the observations made above. If the Government decides to give relaxation under the rules relating to age, the petitioner shall be considered by the Public Service Commission for appointment on the post of Excavation and Exploration Officer. Such decision must be taken by the Government within three months of the presentation of a certified copy of this order. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission shall not proceed with the selection against the post of Excavation and Exploration Officer till then. 27. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition partly allowed. *******