HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRtT PETITION (Si N0.1290 OF 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 2. 3. Rajesh Kumar Mahavar, S/o Shri Radheshyam Mahavar, aged about 38 years. R/o C/o Shri Gouri Ganesh Provision Stores, N©arNow Bus Stand, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (CG). Versus State of Chhattisgarh. through Secretary, Water Resource Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commjssion, New Shanti Nagar, Raipur (CG). Controller Examination. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG). CA/rit petition under Article 226 of the Constitutfon of India) Single Bench : Hon*ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :• Shri Manoj Paranjape, counsel for the petjtioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State. (Passed on this 4(n day of March, 2009) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the advertisement dated 14-3-2€X)8the petitioner participated in the setection process for appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Gazetted Class-11 wherein, in clause 4 (e) it has been mentioned that the age limit was minimum 21 years and maximum 35 years. Under clause 5 (1) (3) of the advertisement the age limit was 38 years, which is applicable to the petitioner, as the petitioner is already working as Assistant Engineer on contract basis in Pradhanmantry Gram Sadak Yojana. Learned counsel would further submit that after having participated in the selection process, the petitioner was declared as over age. Learned counsel would next submit that the petitioner ought to have been given the benefit of the drcutar dated 2-6-2008 (Annexure - P/6). If the benefit of age relaxation of two years. as prescribed in circular is granted, the petitioner would be within the age limit. 2) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. "^' t^^ Gowri 3) On perusal of the advertisement, it is clear that the age limit of the candidate should be minimum 21 years and in case of the candidates who have been working in any other Department or Corporation or Board as ad hoc or contingency paid employees the age limit would be 38 years under clause 5 (1) (3) ofthe advertjsement. 4) The circujar dated 2-6-2008 indicates that those unemployed candidates who could not take part in any selection process on the ground that the examination coutd not be conducted in two years: the outer age Ijmit shall be relaxed for two years. The said circular is not applicable to the facts of the present case, even jf the relaxation of two years is given as the same would be applicabte wherein maximum age is 35 years then after relaxation. the age limit would be 37 years. In the present case, the advertisement is very clear and the maximum age limit for candidates js 38 years, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to relaxation of two years outer age limit, which makes it 40 years. Even otherwise, the petitioner has no right to question the clauses mentioned in the advertisement after having participated in the setection process, as the petitioner was very well aware when he participated in the selection process that the outer age limit was 38 years, as on 1-1-2009. 5) For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition has no substance. It is accordingly dismissed summarily. 6) Consequently, I.A.No.1 stands disposed of. Sd/- SatishK.AgnihoW Judge