^f HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MtSHRA. & HON'BLESHR) R.N. CHANDRAKAR. JJ Appellant Petitioner Versus Resoondents 1. 2. 3. WritADpealNo.79 of 2009 Rajesh Kumar Mahavar S/o Shri Radheshyam Mahavar, aged about 39 yeare,R/o C/oShri Gouri Ganesh Provision Stores, Near New Bus Stand, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary. Water Resources Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur Distt. Raipur (CG) Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, New Shanti Nagar, Raipur (CG) Controller Examination, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) Present Mr. Wpiti Tiwari, counsel forthe appellant. Mr. Rajendra Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1. IVIr. V.R. Tiwari, counsel for respondehts No. 2 & 3. ORALJUDGMENT (16th March, 2010) PerDh/rencfra Mi^ira. J -<•-*?£'';"~'~: Bythis writappeal, the appellant/petitioner has questioned ttie legaTily'ano validity of the order dated 4 March, 2009 passed in Writ Petition (s) No.1290/09, whereby the' petitioner's writ petition has been dismissed and it has been held that the benefit of relaxation oftwo years in age given under Circular dated2 June, 2008 by the State could not be extended to the petitioner and the petitipner, having participated in the selection process, has no right to question the clauses mentioned in the adverBsement. It is not in dispute that the advertisement was issued on 28.3.2008. Clause 5(1 )(3) of the advertisement clearly mentions that Ihe upper age limit for the government employees shall be 38 years and they shall not be entWed for any other relaxation in age under any other category. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process and his candidature was rejected as he exceeded the maxijnumage limitprescribed in the advertisement. ^- Having heard leamed counsel for the appellant/petitioner, after going through the impugned order, the advertisement and the relev^nt circular, which was issued subsequent to issuance of the advertisement, we areof the opinion that the appellant/petitioner has been rightty held not entitled to relaxadon in age as per Cireular dated 2 June, 2008 by the learned Single Judge. We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which warrants interference. Accordingty, the appeal isdismissed. F- S(V- Dhuwndra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. GHANDRAKAR. Judge \