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. 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 ha