ORDER

1.Leave granted.

2. The appellant was born on 1-9-1929. A notice of retirement was given

on 15-5-1984 that the appellant would retire on 31-8-1984 upon attaining the age of superannuation. On 28-9-1984, a circular was issued by the State Government extending the age of retirement with effect from the date of the circular for a further period of three years.

3. Seeking to take advantage of the circular, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court inter alia claiming that he was entitled to the benefit of the circular. The ground for this claim was twofold. The appellant claimed that he was born after 3.00 p.m. on 1-9-1929 and, therefore, it should be taken that he was actually born on 2-9-1929. The second ground was that the rule which prescribed the calculation of the age of retirement was ultra vires the Constitution.

4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition relying upon the decision of this Court in Prabhu Dayal Sesma v. State of Rajasthan1• The Division Bench dismissed the appellants appeal on the basis of the same judgment. The appellants application for review was also rejected.

5. Before us, the appellant has contended that the review applic