WP(C) 4360/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. H. Thakuria, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Phukan , learned State counsel. For the order proposed to be passed, I do not consider it necessary to i ssue formal notice. Suffice it to mention that the petitioner claims to have been appointed against the suspension vacancy of a Chowkidar in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, on 24.12.1993. After availing her services thereafter til l 1996, she was discontinued. Having failed to impress upon the authorities to a ppoint her as Office Peon in the said establishment on regular basis, the petiti oner approached this Court with W.P.(C) No. 2554/2007, which was disposed of on 30.05.2007 with the observation that in the process initiated meanwhile by the a dvertisement dated 14.03.2007 for appointment to Grade-IV post to which she had responded, her case would be considered. As by then the petitioner had crossed t he upper age limit, this Court left the said issue of relaxation thereof at the discretion of the authorities concerned. The petitioner, however, was not appoin ted. She is, thus, before this Court again with the grievance against the curren t advertisement dated 25.06.2008, amongst others for the post of Peon in the Off ice of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri. According to her, in view of the above f actual backdrop, she having submitted her candidature this time as well, her ove rage should be condoned and some weightage ought be granted to her in the matter of selection and appointment to the aforesaid post. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts and the documents annexed to the writ petition, this Court considers it fit and proper to dispose of this petition with the observation th at if the petitioner, as asserted by her, has offered her candidature in the pro cess initiated by the advertisement dated 25.06.2008, the same would be consider ed in terms of the stipulations mentioned therein. It would be upto the authorit ies concerned to grant her relaxation on any count if required by her and permis sible in law. It is made clear that this Court has not issued any direction to t he authorities to extend any relaxation to the petitioner and it would be exclus ively in the discretion and domain of the concerned authorities to take a decisi on in this regard. No costs.