JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The appellant is the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). The controversy centres around the posts of Assistant Regional Inspector (Technical) in the Transport Department. A requisition was sent on 28.04.2014 by the Government for filling up 11 posts of ARI (Technical). It appears that on 21.02.2014, the upper age limit was fixed as 42 years. On 12.08.2014, an amended requisition was sent by which the age limit was fixed between 21 years to 42 years. Pursuant to the same, the appellant Commission issued advertisement dated 10.12.2014. Therein, the last date for submitting the applications was shown as 25.12.2014; the age limit was shown between 21 years to 42 years. 2. The writ petitioners approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “1. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the State Government to take a decision for absorption of each of the petitioner on the post of ARI (Technical) as one time measure in exercise of the power as provided under the proviso to Article 320(3) of the Constitution of India keeping 4 posts of ARI (Technical) outside the purview of the Public Service Commission in order to absorb the petitioners. 2. A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the employment notice no.A-2/E-1(ARI) 2014-15 dated 10.12.2014 issued by the respondent no.3 whereby the applications have been invited for appointment to the post of Assistant Regional Transport Inspector (Technical) so far it relates to four posts of ARI (Technical) on the ground that in the advertisement there is no clause of age relaxation of the petitioners which were granted by the Transport Commissioner pursuant to an order dated 22.12.2014.” 3. The sheet anchor of the case of the writ petitioners is Annexure 3 order dated 22.12.2014 issued by the Commissioner (Transport). In substance, according to the writ petitioners, it evidences granting of relaxation of the upper age limit in respect of the petitioners. It is noteworthy that the petitioners are employees of the Transport Department working in the ministerial cadre. It further appears that for considerably long period of time they have been officiating as ARIs (Technical). It further transpires that relaxation of the upper age limit was sought and representations were made and Annexure 3 ensued in consequence thereof. It is noteworthy that the petitioners are employees of the Transport Department working in the ministerial cadre. It further appears that for considerably long period of time they have been officiating as ARIs (Technical). It further transpires that relaxation of the upper age limit was sought and representations were made and Annexure 3 ensued in consequence thereof. The substance of the order dated 22.12.2014 issued by the Commissioner of Transport recited that the writ petitioners, among others, could make their applications in terms of the on going selection but by the last date, namely, 25.12.2014 and they be considered for selection. The writ petitioners were admittedly not able to make their applications before 25.12.2014. They submitted their applications on 30.12.2014. It is in this factual matrix that the learned Single Judge took the view that relaxation having been granted only on 22.12.2014 and time given for filing the applications under advertisement dated 10.12.2014 upto 25.12.2014. The applications filed by the petitioners, who were beneficiaries of the order dated 22.12.2014 should be given benefit of being considered for selection. It was further directed that they be allowed to continue till the original selection takes place. It was also ordered that it would not stand on the way of the Commission for examining the aspect of qualification of the writ petitioners otherwise empowering the Commission to consider the case as per law otherwise. It is feeling aggrieved by the same, the Commission is before us. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the Commission, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 5. The learned counsel for the Commission would rely on the dates, as we have narrated earlier, namely, fixing of the upper age limit as 42 years, the requisition dated 28.04.2014 followed by the amended requisition dated 12.08.2014 and culminating in the issuance of the advertisement dated 10.12.2014, wherein the last date was 25.12.2014. It is emphasized that the petitioners had applied for the benefit of the relaxation and consideration of the applications filed beyond time and the same were rejected by communication dated 18.02.2015 and it is pointed out that the said communication was not challenged and without challenging the same, the learned Single Judge was in error and it is submitted that the learned Single Judge was in error in granting the relief. 6. 6. Per contra, Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the writ petitioners would submit that the writ petitioners have been working for a considerable period of time as ARIs (Technical); they had a legitimate expectation to be appointed as ARIs (Technical). It so happened that as per the age limit fixed under the rule, it became impossible of compliance by them having regard to the age which they attained, but he points out that the Court may also consider the number of years they have put in as ARIs (Technical). It is pointed out that the Government, which is the Appointing Authority, has taken a clear decision in Annexure 3 dated 22.12.2014 to give relaxation and when the relaxation was directed to be given, it was the duty of the Commission to give effect to it as the Commission is a recruiting body. It is further pointed out that in the body of the writ petition it has been specifically averred that the Commission was under the duty to issue a corrigendum and extend the last date, so that the persons, like the writ petitioners, could apply and avail of the benefit of the order dated 22.12.2014. He further submitted that the power of relaxation is vested in the Government under Rule 26 of the Uttarakhand Transport (Subordinate) Technical Service Rules, 2009. He read out the Rule to us and it appears to suggest that the Rule contemplates granting of relaxation to existing employees from the rigour of any particular Rule. 7. As far as not challenging the decision of the Commission is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that it was not communicated to the petitioners and the information was gathered from the website of the Commission and nothing should turn on the petitioners not challenging the said communication and it is not addressed to the petitioners. He would submit that he would support the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 8. The age limit was fixed between 21 years to 42 years in regard to the posts of ARI (Technical). The matter is governed by the statutory rules. Undoubtedly, under the rules, the Government is empowered to grant relaxation. He would submit that he would support the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 8. The age limit was fixed between 21 years to 42 years in regard to the posts of ARI (Technical). The matter is governed by the statutory rules. Undoubtedly, under the rules, the Government is empowered to grant relaxation. The order, which is relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners dated 22.12.2014 issued by the Commissioner (Transport), no doubt, Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the petitioners would emphasize that he is also the Principal Secretary in the Transport Department but we must consider what really does the document dated 10.12.2014 do. It is really not an order as such as it is a communication issued by the Commissioner (Transport) to the Commission. Assuming for a moment that it is an order within the meaning of Rule 26, examining what it really directs is that the petitioners are permitted to apply provided they applied before the last date. Therefore, if the petitioners lay store by the said communication the applications of the petitioners must have been made before 25.12.2014. Admittedly, the petitioners had not done the same. There is no challenge to the said order to the extent that the Government has not sought to permit the petitioners an extended period of time for making the applications. Therefore, we have to take the order as it is. Even treating it as an order, the effect is that if the petitioners had applied before 25.12.2014, it was a direction to the Commission to consider their candidature. Therefore, petitioners cannot be permitted to rely on that communication for supporting the judgment as delivered by the learned Single Judge. Counsel for the Commission would submit that the rules cannot be changed in midway after the issuance of the said advertisement. He would also submit that it was an order which was communicated by the Commissioner (Transport) and it is not a case where it was issued by a Government servant. No doubt, the learned Single Judge found that the applications sought to be uploaded were not possible as there is prohibition against the person above 42 years applying and the applications were not accepted. No doubt, the learned Single Judge found that the applications sought to be uploaded were not possible as there is prohibition against the person above 42 years applying and the applications were not accepted. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Commission that the applications, which were given on 30.12.2014, were given by hand and even if the software did not accept the applications on line it could have been given by hand before 25.12.2014. 9. As regards the argument of the writ petitioners that a corrigendum should have been issued, we notice that there is no such relief sought at all for the issuance of a corrigendum. Further, it is a case that even though it is gathered from the website and petitioners themselves have produced their document showing that the Commission has rejected their representations to accept the applications filed beyond time, the petitioners had not sought to challenge the same. The resultant position can be summed up as follows :- Petitioners challenged the advertisement dated 10.12.2014. That was not quashed by the learned Single Judge. Representations of the petitioners were rejected. Petitioners have failed to challenge the same. Therefore, we must proceed on the basis that the advertisement dated 10.12.2014 was legal and proper. As per the same the last date was 25.12.2014. Even proceeding on the basis that by order dated 10.12.2014 petitioners were also permitted to apply, they were only permitted to apply before the last date. Admittedly, they had not applied before the last date. As already noted the subsequent applications were given by hand on 30.12.2014. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the Commission, they could have given the applications before 25.12.2014 by hand, if the applications were not being accepted on line. There is merit in the contention of the Commission that the Commission, as a constitutional body, can not be called upon to change the rules of the game. The advertisement dated 10.12.2014 was issued fixing 25.12.2014 as the last date. The advertisement challenged by the petitioners did not suffer from any legal infirmity as on the date on which it was issued, namely, 10.12.2014 as the Commission was acting strictly in terms of the requisition made as per which the maximum age was 42 years. The advertisement dated 10.12.2014 was issued fixing 25.12.2014 as the last date. The advertisement challenged by the petitioners did not suffer from any legal infirmity as on the date on which it was issued, namely, 10.12.2014 as the Commission was acting strictly in terms of the requisition made as per which the maximum age was 42 years. Therefore, the subsequent development in the form of communication dated 22.12.2014 should not have been relied upon by the learned Single Judge to issue the direction. The relief, which has been granted, is not the relief which is prayed for also. 10. Therefore, in such circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was in error. The appeal filed by the Commission succeeds. The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge will stand set aside. The writ petition will stand dismissed.