JUDGMENT 1. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is challenging the order dated, 23.1.96 (Annex.7) of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short the RPSC) whereby his application form for direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules of 1989) was rejected on the ground of being over-age. 2. Put briefly, the necessary facts which are not in dispute are thus: The R.P.S.C. invited applications, vide Advertisement No. 6/94-95 dated. 3.10.94 for direct recruitment to the posts of Sub-Inspector through the Combined Competitive Examination, 1994. The last date for submission of the application forms was 26.11.94. The age prescribed for candidates as per the rules of 1989 and as well as the Advertisement, was 20 years as the minimum age and 23 years as the maximum age. It was prescribed in the advertisement that the candidate should have obtained the age of 20 years on January 1, 1995, but should not have attained the age of 23 years. The petitioner was allowed to appear in the written examination which was held on May 14, 1995 in which he was declared successful. He was also successful in the Physical Efficiency Test, but on scrutiny of the application form, he was found not eligible being over-age by one day on 1.1.95, the cut off date as per the rules and the advertisement. 3. In view of the authoritative decisions of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Prabhu Dayal Sesma and of the Apex Court in Prabhu Dayal Sesma v. State of Rajasthan and another, 1986 (4) S.C.C. 59 , it cannot be disputed that the petitioner was over age on 1.1.95 by one day. In the case of Prabhu Dayal Sesma (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under: "As already stated a legal day commences at 12'o Clock midnight and continues until the same hour the following night. It would therefore appear that the appellant having been born on January 2, 1956, he had not only attained the age of 28 years but also completed the same at 12 o'clock on the midnight of January 1, 1984. On the next day i.e. on January 2, 1984, the appellant would be one day more than 28 years. It would therefore appear that the appellant having been born on January 2, 1956, he had not only attained the age of 28 years but also completed the same at 12 o'clock on the midnight of January 1, 1984. On the next day i.e. on January 2, 1984, the appellant would be one day more than 28 years. The learned Judges were therefore right in holding that the appellant was disqualified for direct recruitment to the Rajasthan Administrative Service and as such, was not entitled to appear at the examination held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in 1983. We affirm the view taken by the learned judges as also the decision in G. Vatsala Rani case." Having held so, it observed in para-15 thus:- "It is rather unfortunate that the appellant should upon the construction placed on Rule 11-B of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962 fail to secure entry into the Rajasthan Administrative Service and allied services of the Government of Rajasthan merely because he exceeds the upper age limit just by one day. The Government ought to consider the question of relaxing the upper age limit in the case of the appellant in order to mitigate the hardship, if otherwise permissible. There is need for a provision like the proviso to Rule 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment of Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1955, conferring the power of relaxation on the State Government under certain conditions without which a deserving candidates would be rendered ineligible for appointment." 4. In the writ petition, the petitioner challenges the cut off date to be arbitrary. This contention has no merit after the full Bench decision of this Court in Surendra Singh Rao and others v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 (1) WLC (Raj.) 197 . This petition was filed on 7.2.96 and thereafter, the petitioner made representation to the Home Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur on 27.3.96 with a request to grant relaxation in upper-age limit of one day in the case of the petitioner in exercise of powers under rule 11(3) of the Rules of 1989 which reads as under : "(3) However, the upper age limit mentioned above may be relaxed by three years in exceptional cases by appointing authority, after previous approval of the government." 5. Confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the academic career of the petitioner is excellent, in as much as, he is M.Sc. in Chemistry with M.Phil and he was throughout 1st Division. Learned Counsel also contended that the petitioner was successful in the written test as well as in Physical Efficiency Test and the object of conferring power of relaxation under certain conditions is to safe-guard the interest of an extra-ordinary deserving candidate as observed by the Supreme Court in Prabhu Dayal Sesma's case. Learned counsel therefore, contended that in the facts and circumstances, relaxation in upper age limit in the case of the appellant be granted. It is true that the academic career of the petitioner is excellent throughout and it is also true that he had been successful in the written test as well as in Physical Efficiency Test. It is also true that the petitioner has failed to secure consideration for the post of Sub-Inspector as having exceeded the upper age limit just by one day. The petitioner's case may be worth consideration sympathetically, but as per the rules of 1989, the power of relaxation in upper age limit in exceptional cases lies with the appointing authority after previous approval of the Government. In the instant case, the petitioner had made a representation to the Home Secretary on 27.3.96, though, in fact, he should have made such representation to the appointing authority. 6. In view of the above discussion, though this Court is unable to give any relief to the petitioner but, in the facts and circumstances, the petition is decided with the following directions: (i) That the petitioner shall be free to make a fresh representation to the Appointing Authority within three weeks from today detailing out the factual aspect for seeking relaxation of one day in upper age limit with a certified copy of this order. (ii) If any such representation is made, the Appointing Authority shall consider the prayer of the petitioner and if necessary, seek approval of the State Government if it is satisfied that the petitioner's case is of exceptional nature looking to his brilliant academic career. The petitioner's request for relaxation shall be decided within two months from the date of making of representation. The petitioner shall be intimated of the result immediately thereafter. The petition is disposed of accordingly. The petitioner's request for relaxation shall be decided within two months from the date of making of representation. The petitioner shall be intimated of the result immediately thereafter. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Cost of this petition is made easy.Petition disposed of. *******