WP(C) 3166/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D. AGARWAL Amitava Roy, J A challenge has been laid to the advertisement dated 06.04.2011 (Annexure - 7 to the writ petition) issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Sivasagar invitin g applications amongst others for the post of Stenographer Grade-III in the esta blishment of the authority issuing the same. We have heard Mr. D.C. C. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. B.S. Goyel, learned State Counsel and Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhat i High Court appearing for Respondent No.2. The pleaded case of the petitioner, in short, is that he is a graduate in Arts a nd has successfully completed diploma course in Stenography (English) as well as computer application. He had been appointed as a stenographer on temporary bas is in the establishment of District & Sessions Judge, Sivasagar on 17.05.2001. On 27.07.2006 he was transferred to the establishment of Adhoc Addl. District an d Sessions Judge (FTC), Dibrugarh and since then he has been rendering his servi ces thereat. While the matter rested at that, the District and Sessions Judge, Sivasagar issued the aforementioned advertisement, inter alia for the filling up the post of Stenographer Grade-III. The grievance of the petitioner is that th ough he is eligible in terms of the criteria prescribed by the advertisement and had duly offered his candidature, he was not called for the written test/ inter view held on 11.06.2011. Being aggrieved he has approached before this Court fo r redress. The District & Sessions Judge, Sivasagar, in response to the queries made by thi s Court has furnished written instructions to Mr. Dey, which disclose that the p etitioner had not been called for the interview/written examination already conducted on 11.06.2011 as he was over aged, being of 43 years 0 months of ag e on 1st January, 2011. A copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Selection B oard to the above effect rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on this gro und has also been laid before this Court. Whereas, Mr. Phukan has urged that in view of the unblemished services rendered by the petitioner without any break as a Stenographer in the establishment of Di strict & Sessions Judge at Sivasagar and presently at Dibrugarh, his over age ou ght to have condoned and he should have been allowed to participate in the inter view/written examination. Mr. Dey has maintained that in the face of upper age limit of 38 years as on 31.03.2011 mentioned in the advertisement and in absence of any provision for relaxation of overage in the relevant Rules, the decision of the Selection Board to exclude the petitioner from the process cannot be faul ted with. We have considered the pleadings on record as well as the rival submissions. On being queried by this Court, Mr. Phukan has not been able to point out any prov ision in the relevant Rules conferring power on the appointing authority to rela x the over age of a candidate contending for the post involved. Mr. Dey has on i nstructions further pleaded that as on date the outer age limit for appointment to any post of equivalent grade in government service is 38 years. In the above view of the matter, on a consideration of the factual aspects invol ved, we are of the opinions that the petitioner cannot be granted the relief as prayed for. Admittedly, though the date of the interview/written examination ha d been fixed on 11.06.2011 to the knowledge of the petitioner, he had approached this Court by instituting the instant petition on 16.06.2011. Be that as it may, on a consideration of all relevant aspects, we are of the co nsidered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case no interference with the selection process on the grounds assailed before us is called for. Th e petition stands rejected. The above notwithstanding, it would be open for the petitioner if he is so advis ed, to request for condonation of his over age in any other process in which he may in future, offer his candidature and if it is so done, the concerned authori ty would examine the said request in terms of the Rules and/or relevant administ rative instructions as applicable and take an appropriate decision. No costs.