JUDGMENT 1. - In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated, September 23, 1995 of the Director, Computer, Rajasthan Jaipur. In fact, this is second inning in the matter. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this petition, necessary facts may be narrated. Vide advertisement No. 1/91, applications were invited for different posts including 20 posts of Data Entry Operator. Out of the same, four posts were to be filled in from general category. The appointments were to he made on urgent/temporary basis for a period of six months or till the duly selected candidates were made available by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The petitioner was one of the applicants. It appears that the selections were not made pursuant to the said advertisement on the ground that the Rajasthan Computer State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1992 came into force in the mean time. Cancelling the aforesaid advertisement, fresh advertisement No. 1/93-94 was issued and the petitioner against submitted his application for the post of Data Entry Operator. By the time, subsequent advertisement No. 1/93-94 came to be published, the petitioner became over age and his application was rejected. Then the petitioner and two others filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 37/94 whereby they challenged cancellation of advertisement No. 1/91 and to provide them appointment. A further mandamus was sought by the petitioners to direct them to be eligible, for the subsequent advertisement considering their eligibility in terms of the earlier advertisement. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated, September 27, 1994 dismissed the writ petition. Then the petitioner and other two petitioners in the writ petition preferred a joint Special Appeal Under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, in which the questions raised before the Division Bench was to the effect that age relaxation be provided to the petitioners as they were eligible as per Advertisement No. 1/91. It is pertinent to mention here that this question was not raised before the learned Single Judge, However, this question was considered by the Division Bench in the Special Appeal No. 855/94 filed by the petitioner and two others. Before the Division Bench, the relaxation in the age was claimed by the petitioner on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in Praveen Jindal v. State of Haryana ( 1993 SCC 4 Suppl. 70). Before the Division Bench, the relaxation in the age was claimed by the petitioner on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in Praveen Jindal v. State of Haryana ( 1993 SCC 4 Suppl. 70). The Division Bench decided the Special Appeal as under : "The question remains as to whether this Court has any jurisdiction to relax the age bar when the power has been given to the Government under Rule 44 of the Rajasthan Computer State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1992 (for short the Rules). Our answer is in negative. The Apex Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, can make such an order. This Court has no such powers. In such circumstances, we allow the appeal in part and direct that in case the petitioner-appellant makes an application to the State Government under Rule 44 of the Rules, within a period of ten days from today, the Government will consider the application objectively and will pass orders on that application within 20 days thereafter and will convey the same to the applicant by registered post. The respondents will keep one post vacant for two weeks from the date of communication in case the application of the petitioner-appellant is rejected. But in case the application is allowed, the respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner." 3. Thereafter, the question of relaxation of age limit was considered by the State Government under Rule-44 of the Rajasthan Computer and Subordinate Service Rules, 1992 (in short the Rules of 1992), the State Government declined to grant any relaxation in the age limit observing as under : HINDI MATTER 496494 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order of the State Government declining to grant relaxation in the age limit is erroneous. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner I find no merit in this submission. Rule 44 of the Rules of 1992 which empowers the State Government to relax the age limit reads as under : R. 44. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner I find no merit in this submission. Rule 44 of the Rules of 1992 which empowers the State Government to relax the age limit reads as under : R. 44. 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 Rajasthan Public Service Commission by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms." 5. The order of the concerned department of the Government clearly indicates that they have considered the matter objectively and declined to grant relaxation in the age limit. The order of the State Government does not appear to be unreasonable, otherwise, it would be discriminatory qua other applicants who did not apply in pursuance to the subsequent advertisement on account of their being over age. The Division Bench has already held that the relaxation in the age cannot be granted by the Court.Consequently, the petition is dismissed summarily.Petition dismissed. *******