WP(C) 3662/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI Heard Mr. M. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Central Government counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 an d 2. Heard also Ms. B. L. Sinha, learned Government Advocate, appearing on beha lf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. By filing this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of I ndia, the petitioner has put to challenge the advertisement, which has been publ ished by the respondents inviting applications for filling up various posts, inc luding the post of football coach. It has been pointed out, on behalf of the respondents, that in terms of the adve rtisement aforementioned, the maximum prescribed age for appointment to the post of football coach is 30 years, but the petitioner being aged about 40 years, is not eligible to participate in the selection process and he has, therefore, not been called for participating in the selection process. Reacting to the submis sion, so made, it has been pointed out, on behalf of the petitioner, that in ter ms of the Circular, which has been issued by the Sports Authority of India, the age of the candidates for appointment to the post of football coach should be fr om 31 to 35 years. Even if the contention of the petitioner, that until a person completes the age of 35 years, he would be eligible for selection and appointment to the post of f ootball coach, is correct, the fact remains that the petitioner is aged, accordi ng to the affidavit filed by the petitioner, 40 years. In such circumstances, t he petitioner is not eligible in terms of the advertisement nor can he be said t o be eligible even if the maximum prescribed age is treated to be 35 years. In view of the above, this writ petition is not admitted and the same sh all accordingly stand dismissed. The interim directions, passed in this writ petition, on 25.06.2010, sha ll accordingly stand vacated.