JUDGMENT 1. - Since on same set of facts similar relief has been claimed in all the above writ petitions, they are heard together and decided by this common order. 2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short the Commission') issued an advertisement calling for applications for the post of Sub Inspector and Platoon Commander. So far as present writ petitions are concerned, matter pertains to the post of Sub Inspector. In the advertisement, age limit of each candidate has been provided at item No. 6 and, as per aforesaid, a candidate is allowed to apply for the post if he has not attained the age of more than 25 years as on 1.1.2011 and as otherwise attained the age of 20 years on the aforesaid date. Benefit of age relaxation has been given to certain set of reserve candidates and others like those in Government service, ex-service man etc. 3. Herein, petitioners' grievance is that after the year 2007 recruitment to the post of SI has been conducted pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.11.2010 and in the intervening period of three years, petitioners have crossed maximum age limit but then inaction on the part of the respondents can not be detrimental to the rights of the petitioners more so when the vacancies have to be determined every year as on 1st April. The respondents visualising the aforesaid situation, came up with a Notification dated 23.9.2008 providing benefit of three years age limit to those candidates who were within age limit in the years in which no recruitment was made but have not crossed the maximum age limit more than three years. Aforesaid Notification was issued by the Government visualising the situation that Government/RPSC could not make selections every year rather there is a gap of several years in few recruitments. 4. Looking to the object in bringing the Notification aforesaid, benefit of age relaxation is to be given to those who have crossed the maximum age limit during the period no recruitment could take place. The aforesaid Notification dated 23.9.2008 has not been made applicable to the police services but then discrimination has been made by doing so. 4. Looking to the object in bringing the Notification aforesaid, benefit of age relaxation is to be given to those who have crossed the maximum age limit during the period no recruitment could take place. The aforesaid Notification dated 23.9.2008 has not been made applicable to the police services but then discrimination has been made by doing so. Petitioners, accordingly, pray that if at all Notification dated 23.09.2008 is not applicable to the petitioners, they are entitled to the benefit of age relaxation under rule 46 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Police Subordinate Service) Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules of 1989'). Even rule 11(b)(3) of the Rules of 1989 also provides for the benefit of age relaxation by maximum period of three years. Thus respondents should provide age relaxation keeping in mind that no recruitment took place in previous years. 5. The hardship of the petitioners is otherwise to be seen that they have already appeared in the selection process and passed in the written examination thus, if at this stage, they are debarred to further participate in the selection process then they would be deprived from getting appointment. 6. Mr. S.N. Kumawat, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State and who also represents the Commission, on the other hand, submits that recruitment to the post of SI was made in the year 2007 and now the advertisement has been issued in the year 2010 thus the gap is of only of two years. Looking to the aforesaid, it is not a case where inordinate delay is there in making recruitment, though it may not be every year but then recruitment to the post of SI is not with delay in any case. The Notification dated 23.9.2008 has been issued and applied to those cases where recruitment has not been undertaken for years together and, in any case, the aforesaid Notification is not applicable to the present matter since Police Subordinate Services are not being covered by the aforesaid Notification. 7. In the light of position of facts in these cases, petitioners are not extended benefit arising out of the aforesaid Notification. Yet the Commission sent a letter to the State Government to allow benefit of the Notification even to the Police Subordinate Services, however, vide order dated 28.9.2010 at Annexure-R-1 it has been refused. 7. In the light of position of facts in these cases, petitioners are not extended benefit arising out of the aforesaid Notification. Yet the Commission sent a letter to the State Government to allow benefit of the Notification even to the Police Subordinate Services, however, vide order dated 28.9.2010 at Annexure-R-1 it has been refused. In the light of the aforesaid, petitioners are not extended benefit of the Notification dated 23.9.2008. 8. So far as reference of rules 11(b)(3) and 46 of the Rules of 1989 is concerned, it pertains to grant of benefit of age relaxation and relaxation of rules but then none of the petitioners have made representation to the Government for extending age relaxation. Necessary consideration in this regard can be made only when a case is made out by the candidate concerned. Since nobody has approached the Government, prayer made in this regard may not be allowed. 9. I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and perused the record of,the case. 10. The first issue for consideration is as to whether benefit of Notification dated 23.9.2008 can be extended to the petitioners. On perusal of the Notification and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, it comes out that it has not been applied to the Police Subordinate Services. In absence of the application of the Notification dated 23.9.2008 petitioners are not entitled to seek benefit under the said Notification. This Is in view of the fact that rules applicable to the petitioners remains un-amended and, as per the Rules, maximum age limit is as has been given in the advertisement. Accordingly, so far as first argument is concerned, I am unable to accept the same as it goes against the rules applicable to the recruitment in question. 11. So far as giving benefit of provisions of rule 11(b)(3) is concerned, this rule provides for grant of relaxation in age by the appointing authority subject to approval of the Government. Since much emphasis has been made for grant of relaxation, it would be gainful to reproduce rules 11(b)(3) and 46 of the Rules of 1989 thus - "11. Age.-A candidate for direct recruitment to the services must have attained (a)... (b).... Provided that (1)... (2)... (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. 46. Age.-A candidate for direct recruitment to the services must have attained (a)... (b).... Provided that (1)... (2)... (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. 46. 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 of 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 person 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 condition 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 Administrative Department." 12. Perusal of rule 11(b)(3) shows that the Government is having the power to grant relaxation in upper age limit by three years in exceptional cases and this can be done by the appointing authority with the previous approval of the Government. Same way, rule 46 provides for relaxation of the Rules. 13. Looking to the aforesaid, it cannot be denied that power of relaxation either regarding application of rules or grant of relaxation in upper age limit exist and that can be exercised by the Government though in exceptional cases. While rule 11(b)(3) is invoked in particular for age, rule 46 is invoked in general. 14. The case In hand is of the nature where petitioners have attained or crossed the maximum upper age limit during the period when no recruitment took place. Though it is not a case where recruitment has been belated by the respondents unduly as the last recruitment was made in the year 2007. The facts however remains that if no recruitment took place in the year 2008-09 and 2009-10, respondents can consider the case of the petitioners under rule 11(b)(3) and rule 46 of the Rules of 1989. Though it is not a case where recruitment has been belated by the respondents unduly as the last recruitment was made in the year 2007. The facts however remains that if no recruitment took place in the year 2008-09 and 2009-10, respondents can consider the case of the petitioners under rule 11(b)(3) and rule 46 of the Rules of 1989. The aforesaid consideration can be made either by the respondents suo motu or representation made by the candidate concerned. 15. In the present- matter, none of the petitioners made representation for grant of relaxation in upper age though arguments have been raised in that regard. Thus, looking to the controversy involved herein, I am of the opinion that petitioners may be given liberty to make proper representation to the Government/appointing authority for grant of upper age relaxation under the Rules by invoking rules 11(b)(3) or rule 46 of the Rules of 1989. Petitioners may make out a case of exceptional nature after showing their hardship for grant of benefit of age relaxation. If any such representation/s is made by the petitioners within fifteen days from today then the State Government is expected to consider and decide the same by a speaking order within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 16. In view of the directions aforesaid, second argument has been dealt with the direction as given above. 17. The question now comes that petitioners are under way to the process of selection. They have not been denied further appearance in the selection process but now the position of fact is that they have crossed upper age limit hence apprehending denial of further participation in the process of selection. 18. Mr. Kumawat, learned Additional Advocate General who is also representing the Commission, is fair enough to state that the Commission would be making scrutiny of eligibility at the stage when same is required and till then all the petitioners would be permitted to appear in the process of selection but subject to their merit i.e. if somebody is not coming to the required size of the merit to which the candidates have been called for further selection then such candidate would not be allowed to participate in the selection process. To illustrate, it is submitted that if for further process of selection, candidates are permitted only to three times of the posts advertised then petitioner falling in the merit to the aforesaid extent would only be permitted to participate in the process of further selection and finally if age relaxation is not given to that candidate, Commission would be making scrutiny at the appropriate singe to debar the candidate to get appointment. 19. Looking to the aforesaid statement, petitioners would be allowed to continue in the selection process as per rule and position indicated above. If a petitioner obtains low merit position and is not coming to the size required for further selection then he would not be eligible for further participation in selection and others may be allowed to participate in the selection till the Commission makes scrutiny of the eligibility of the candidates but it will remain subject to the order of State Government on the representation by the petitioners for age relaxation. 20. With the aforesaid directions/observations, all the writ petitions so as the stay applications are disposed of.All Petitions And Applications Disposed of as Above. *******