Judgment :- V.S.SIRPURKAR,J Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.S.Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. 2. Writ Petition No.18462 of 2003 is in respect of the claim of the age by the petitioner. The petitioner was born, according to him, on 23.1.1950, but the date of birth had been entered as 19.4.1948. According to the petitioner, that was absurd because, his parents were married on 28.1.1949, in support of which claim, he also probably filed a copy of the marriage invitation of his parents. 3. The petitioner undoubtedly entered the service in the year 1975 as a Grade-II Police Constable, was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable in 1981 and became Head Constable in 1994. The petitioner became entitled under the rules, to vie for the post of Sub-Inspector only after completion of four years of service as Head Constable and that would take the matter to 1998. However, it is an admitted position that owing to the earlier inaction on the part of the Government, right from 1985 to 1996, there was no exercise of holding range promotion and in 1998-2000 also, there was no exercise of holding range promotions. For the first time in 2001, that opportunity came to the petitioner for competing for the post of Sub-Inspector, but unfortunately, on the required date, he was over-aged by 45 days. He therefore approached the Tribunal challenging the constitutionality of Rule 3(2)(d) of Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service. At the same time, he also raised a dispute regarding his date of birth and sought a declaration that his date of birth was liable to be altered. This, he claimed on the basis of a decree passed in O.S.13/98 by District Munsif, Andipatti dated 29.7.1998. 4. Be that as it may, the Tribunal seems to have disposed of both these Original Applications by a common order. Insofar as the date of birth is concerned, the Tribunal took the view and in our opinion rightly, that the petitioner should not have woken up only in the year 1998 to claim the changed date of birth. 4. Be that as it may, the Tribunal seems to have disposed of both these Original Applications by a common order. Insofar as the date of birth is concerned, the Tribunal took the view and in our opinion rightly, that the petitioner should not have woken up only in the year 1998 to claim the changed date of birth. Even if it is granted that the petitioner was actually born on 23.1.1950 and not on 19.4.1948, the question still remains as to why the petitioner firstly gave 19.4.1948 as his date of birth on which date his parents were not married and to begin with, why did he keep quiet right till 1990 when he should have made his claim in the very five years of his service. 5. We do not find anything wrong in the Tribunal's order in that behalf. 6. However, insofar as the question of selection is concerned, the learned counsel Mr.Venkataramani brought to our notice Rule 39 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service, which gives the power to the Government to relax the rules in proper cases. Now here is a case where in pursuance of the interim orders of the Tribunal, the petitioner appeared for the selection and was adjudged as the best candidate in his range. He is selected in the first position. If that is so, in our opinion, he would atleast be entitled to make a representation to the Government for relaxation of the age because, he was over-aged only by 45 days. It is only because of the merit shown by the petitioner that we feel that this is a case for a consideration in respect of the relaxation of age. 7. The other aspect of constitutionality of Rule 3(2)(d) does not impress us much and we confirm the order of the Tribunal in that behalf. Similarly, the argument regarding the age also does not impress us. We have also indicated that the petitioner's silence right from 1974 up to 1998 is fatal to his claim. The only thing that can be done is, the petitioner can be given a liberty to make a representation to the Government, which representation can be made within 15 days from today. If it is so made and reaches the Government, the Government shall consider it within six weeks of its receipt one way or the other. 8. The only thing that can be done is, the petitioner can be given a liberty to make a representation to the Government, which representation can be made within 15 days from today. If it is so made and reaches the Government, the Government shall consider it within six weeks of its receipt one way or the other. 8. We are told that the post has already been kept vacant. Status-quo shall be maintained till the disposal of the representation. 9. In the result, we dismiss W.P.No.18462/2003 and dispose of W.P.No.18601/2003 in the light of our observations. No costs. WPMPs 23264 & 23265 of 2003 are closed.