WP(C) 1114/2008 BEFORE HONBLE MR JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr R. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.J. Gh osh, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. As agreed to by the learned counsel for both sides the writ petition is being disposed of at the motion stage. Five petitioners have joined together to seek a direction from the Court for giving eightage/preference to the past service rend ered by them in the selection for Grade-IV vacancies that have been initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat. The petitioners claim that they have been re ndering continuous service in different Grade-IV posts in the establishment of t he Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat since the year 1994. According to the petitione rs, some vacant Grade-IV posts are being sought to be filled up by the Deputy Co mmissioner, Golaghat in response to which the petitioners have submitted their a pplications. The written test as well as the viva voce was held on 28.2.2008. Th e petitioners claim that by virtue of their continuous service rendered with eff ect from 1.11.94 they would be entitled to preference in the selection process. Hence the writ petition. Having regard to the nature of the reliefs claimed this Court had requir ed the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat to place his version/stand in the matter in writing. The same has been done by the Deputy Commissioner on 1.4.2008. In the said written instructions the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat has affirmed that th e selection for Grade-IV posts have been completed on 28.2.2008 though the resul t thereof has not yet been declared. In the said selection, according to the Dep uty Commissioner, extra marks have been given to the deserving candidates on acc ount of experience. If extra marks have been given to candidates appearing in th e selection on account of their previous experience the said act will amount to giving of preference to such candidates in the selection process. The grievance of the petitioners on this score, therefore, appears to have been attended to by the Deputy Commissioner himself. In the written instructions submitted to the Court the Deputy Commission er has further informed that two of the petitioners i.e. Anil Kumar Nath and Rob indra Hazarika have crossed the maximum age stipulated for entry into Govt. serv ice. In this regard, the Court has been informed that there are certain Govt. o ffice memorandum/office circulars wherein the maximum age prescribed for entry into Govt. service is relaxable in case of in-service candidates. The two petiti oners if they are found to have rendered service from 1.11.94, as claimed, or fr om any subsequent date, though had worked on fortuitous basis, can be understood to be in service candidates for whom the benefit of age relaxation has been pro vided for. In the aforesaid circumstances, the case of the aforesaid two petitio ners i.e. Anil Kumar Nath and Robindra Hazarika shall be dealt with by the Deput y Commissioner keeping in mind the terms of the relevant office memorandum provi ding for relaxation of the upper age limit for entry into Govt. serviced. On the aforesaid basis the cases of the two petitioners will received further consider ation. Writ petition, consequently, is closed in terms of the above directions .