- (1.) Virendra Swamp Bhatnagar has filed this petition for a relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) According to the petitioner he was appointed as an Assistant Mechanic in the Uttar Pradesh Government Roadways Orgnization in the year 1949. In due course, he was confirmed in that post in the year 1956. In March/April 1966 the Public Service Com. mission U. P. issued an advertisement inviting applications for 15 poats of Regional Inspector (Technial)Technical Inspector and Assistant Regional Inspector which were to be filled on the basis of a competitive examination. The advertisement stipulated that candidates for both the posts must not be less than 18 years and more than 35 years on January 1, 1966. It also provided for higher age limit in the case of scheduled caste candidates and for relaxation of maximum age limit in cases of freedom fighters and displaced persons, etc,
(3.) The petitioner was, on 1st January 1966 as per advertisement by the Public Service Commission over-age by 1 year 2 months 17 days. On 5th May 1963 he submitted an application to the Public Service Commission offering himself as a candidate for the two sets of posts advertised by it. On 7th May 1966 he made a representation to the Transport Commissioner U. P praying that in his case, the upper age limit be relaxed in the interest of fair dealings. Besides the petitioner, two other departmental candidates i. e Sarvasri Rajeshwar Nigim and Jagdish Singh Chauhan respondents Nos. 4 and 5, who like. wise were over 35 years of age on 1st January 1966 also made applications praying for relaxation of upper ago limit in their cases. The State Government, vide its order dated 12th July 1968 exempted the petitioner from upper age limit of 35 years and the Transport Commissioner communicated the decision of the State Government to the Public Service Commission vide his letter dated 15.7.1966. The Transport Commissioner vide his communications dated 3lst May 1966 and 8th June 1966 also informed the Public Service Commission about relaxation of age limit in the caes of respondents Nos. 4 and 5.;