JUDGMENT : Mr. Mohammad Rafiq, J. Petitioner Hari Krishan Sharma, by way of this writ petition, has challenged order/letter dated 18.09.2012 issued by respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, 'the RPSC'), whereby his selection on the post of Senior Teacher (Teacher Gr.II) (Hindi) in general category, has been cancelled on the ground of his being overage. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner applied for appointment to aforesaid post in response to advertisement dated 01.06.2011 issued by the RPSC. He submit on-line application on 15.07.2011 to participate in selection process. Respondent RPSC initially considered him eligible to participate in selection process. He appeared in the examination conducted from 7th to 9th of December, 2011, with Roll No.377013, and was declared successful. He secured 390.06 marks and his name stood at serial no.184 in merit list of general category entitling him to get appointment. His status indicated by respondent RPSC on its website was as 'recommended', but later on the same was converted to as 'rejected'. When petitioner submit represented there against, instead of considering the same, respondent RPSC conveyed him vide impugned order/letter that his candidature has been rejected because he was found overage. Petitioner personally contacted the Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, as per the provisions contained in proviso to Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Ministerial & Subordinate Service) Rules and Regulations, 1999, and stated that he should be granted age relaxation of three years rather than two years because no vacancy for past three years after 2008 was advertised. Respondent failed to consider his representation in proper perspective and rejected his candidature. 3. Dr. V.S. Nain, learned counsel for petitioner, argued that the State Government, in recognition of fact that in several of their services vacancies were not advertised for number of years, has made an omnibus amendment in the relevant rules by providing that relaxation of age in such cases shall be provided at least up-to three years. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on judgment of this court dated 27.07.2012 in Vinod Kumar Chauhan v. State of Rajasthan and Others – S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11128/2012. Alternatively, it is argued that since petitioner was overage only by one day and has already been selected to the post, respondents, looking to the hardship, ought to take a pragmatic view and relax the requirement of rules in respect of age. Alternatively, it is argued that since petitioner was overage only by one day and has already been selected to the post, respondents, looking to the hardship, ought to take a pragmatic view and relax the requirement of rules in respect of age. In support of the argument, learned counsel has relied on judgment of this court in Manoj Kumar Sharma v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission – 1996 (1) R.L.R. 471. 4. Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel for respondent RPSC, opposed writ petition and submit that as per the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 and also the condition mentioned in the advertisement, a candidate was required to attain 18 years of age but should not have attained age of 35 years as on 01.01.2012. Earlier, vacancies for the post of Teacher Gr.II (Hindi) were advertised in the year 2008, in which minimum and maximum age of a candidate was to be computed as on 01.01.2009, which would mean that for the year 2009 vacancy was not advertised and thus relaxation for the years 2010 and 2011 could have been granted to him. In other words, what learned counsel for respondent RPSC wants to convey is that a candidate should not have attained maximum age of 37 years as on 01.01.2012. The date of birth of petitioner is 01.01.1975 and he already completed 37 years of age one day prior to 01.01.2012 i.e. on 31.12.2011. Learned counsel, in support of his argument, has relied on judgment of this court in State of Rajasthan v. Prabhu Dayal Sesma, and that of the Supreme Court in Prabhu Dayal Sesma v. State of Rajasthan and Another – (1986) 4 SCC 59 . 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I have given my anxious consideration to the matter. 6. Even though it may be a fact that date on which age of a candidate was to be computed for the purpose of his eligibility in respect of advertisement issued in the year 2008, was 01.01.2009, which would mean that for entire two years i.e. 2009 and 2010, no selection on the post of Teacher Gr. II (Hindi) took place. It was only on 01.06.2011 that advertisement was issued, where for date of eligibility for a candidate in respect of age was to be as on 01.01.2012. II (Hindi) took place. It was only on 01.06.2011 that advertisement was issued, where for date of eligibility for a candidate in respect of age was to be as on 01.01.2012. If eligibility of petitioner is examine with reference to date of advertisement i.e. 01.06.2011 with relaxation of two years, he would possibly be within age but respondents have applied a uniform criteria by requiring that a candidate should not have attained the age 35 years as on 01.01.2012. In any case, therefore, what is required to be seen is as to how much age relaxation petitioner could claim. Even if he is granted two years age relaxation, he still remains barred by age by one day. This court in M.K. Sharma, supra, taking note of somewhat similar situation, observed that the State Government, looking to exceptional nature of case and brilliant academic career of petitioner therein, should consider granting him relaxation in age. 7. The State Government has, in exceptional cases, got such power under the provisions contained in Rule 38 of the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971, which provides that 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 person, it may, with the concurrence of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and in consultation with the Commission by order, dispense with or relax the relevant provisions of the 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 provision already contained in the Rules. 8. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that initially the petitioner was not declared ineligible and was allowed to participate in selection process and was also selected and indeed no advertisement was issued during period between the years 2009 and 2011 and that petitioner, for reason aforesaid, became barred by age by only one day, the respondents should consider him granting relaxation in upper age limit, on his approaching them by way of a representation along-with a copy of this order, and shall pass appropriate speaking order thereon deciding the same within a period of two months from the date of its submission. It goes without saying that, if eventually relaxation in upper age limit is granted to petitioner, though his seniority would relate to the candidate immediately below him in merit, but he would not be entitled to any consequential monetary benefits for interregnum period and would get only notional benefits. 9. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed off. This also disposes off stay application.