WP(C) 6510/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. B. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Saikia, learned counsel representing the Health Department (respondents No. 1 , 2 and 3). None has appears on behalf of the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6. The matter relates to admission of the petitioner to the 1st year BHMS c ourse. In response to the Annexure-F advertisement issued by the Director of Med ical Education, Assam, the petitioner submitted his application seeking admissio n to the said course. The advertisement was issued on 31.8.2007. As regards the age limit, it was stipulated in the advertisement that candidates must not be be low 17 years and above 24 years as on 31.12.2007. It was also indicated that upp er age limit was relaxable by 3 years in respect of the candidates belonging to reserved category indicated in the advertisement. The candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that h e has crossed the upper age limit prescribed in the advertisement. Be it stated here that the petitioner is a reserved category candidate (SC) and accordingly h e is entitled to age relaxation of 3 years as indicated in the advertisement dat ed 31.8.2007. Although as per the Admit Card of HSLC examination, the date of birth of the petitioner is 31.3.1980, but according to the petitioner his actual date of birth is 31.8.1981. There cannot be any dispute relating to the petitioner’s ag e, that the same will have to be taken into account on the basis of the age reco rded in the HSLC certificate. On that basis, his date of birth being 31.3.1980, admittedly he was over aged by a few months. Upon a reference to the Gauhati University and Dibrugarh University Rule s relating to admission, Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since as per the Dibrugarh University Rules, upper age limit of 22 years i s relaxable by 5 years for the reserved category candidates, such relaxation sho uld also be provided to the candidates under Gauhati University Rules. On the ot her hand Mr. Saikia, learned counsel representing the Health Department submits that since Gauhati University Rules does not make any provision for such relaxat ion, no such relaxation can be extended to the petitioner. It is submitted by Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner that in the event of granting the relaxation of 5 years as in the case of Dibrugarh U niversity, the upper age limit fixed in the Gauhati University Rules would get e xtended to 29 years and in that view, the petitioner would come within the zone of consideration. Be it stated here that there is no challenge to the particular Rules relating to age limit of 24 years for the candidates of all categories. T hus, in my considered opinion, no inference can be drawn from another set of Rul es so as to give separate meaning to the clear and unambiguous Rules relating to upper age limit. Be it stated here that the petitioner falls within the jurisdi ction of the Gauhati University. The petitioner asserts that although he was eligible to enroll himself i n the course in question in the year 2005, but because of the fact that the inst itution remained nonfunctional for 4 years, he could not get himself admitted to the course, but for which the present problem of crossing the upper age limit w ould not have arisen. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the matte r of admission to the academic course, the respondents should take a pragmatic a pproach by way of providing relaxation of upper age limit in view of the fact th at the petitioner is over aged by only a few months. As per the advertisement, the upper age limit is 24 years relaxable by 3 years in respect of reserved category candidates. Even if such relaxation is ex tended to the petitioner, he does not come within the zone of consideration, he having crossed the upper age limit. Thus, as per the stipulation made in the adv ertisement as well as Gauhati University Rules, the petitioner having crossed th e upper age limit he could not be admitted. In that view of the matter, it canno t be said that the respondents have acted arbitrarily and/or in violation of the relevant rules. The Writ Court exercising its power of judicial review under Ar ticle 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue any mandamus to act in a par ticular manner towards violation of the rules. I hasten to add that it will be e ntirely upto the authority to decide the issue as to whether the petitioner, in view of the attending facts and circumstances of the case, is entitled to any re laxation as regards the upper age limit. The respondents shall decide the issue dispassionately, taking a pragmatic approach to the matter. In case of any relax ation is extended, same will not a precedent in any future case of the like natu re. The petitioner may approach the authority with appropriate application. In the event of such approach being made by the petitioner, the authority shall decide the issue as expeditiously as possible considering the fact that the cour se has already commenced. Writ petition is disposed of.