WP(C) 2121/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. . JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam. 2. The matter pertains to appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Polic e by way of direct recruitment. As per the advertisement, the petitioners, who are presently serving as Constable, are also entitled to offer their candidature s for direct recruitment. So far as the eligibility is concerned, the petitione rs do not conform to the age requirement, as according to the prescription of ag e in the advertisement, they are already over-aged. 3. It appears that by virtue of an interim order, the petitioners were allo wed to participate in the selection process for the post of Sub-Inspector of Pol ice. 4. The respondents have already relaxed the maximum age upto 32 years. The prescribed age relaxation is upto 32 years for general category candidates with further relaxation of 3 years for SC/ST category candidates. 5. After the aforesaid selection conducted with the participation of the pe titioners, results have been declared. It will be pertinent to mention here that the petitioners No.3 and 8 being the reserved category candidates, had earlier appeared in the selection. The remaining petitioners are all the general catego ry candidates other than SC/ST category candidates. As per the affidavit filed b y the respondents in Misc. Case No.3466/2009, out of the remaining 5 (five) peti tioners, Ajmal Hussain and Manoj Kumar Singh are the only two candidates who con form to the relaxed standard of age, which is 32 years. However, Mr. B.M. Choudh ury, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is wrong calculation of age as on 1.1.2008 in respect of the petitioners Sri Bitul Neog and Sri Bipu l Neog whose age has been shown as on 1.1.2008 as 32 years 6 months 1 day and 32 years respectively. According to him, on a proper calculation, their age as on 1.1.2008 is found to be 31 years 6 months 1 day and 32 years 3 months. So far as the petitioner Sri Ratul Boruah is concerned, his age is 41 years 11 months 20 days. 6. In view of the above, it is the submission of Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learne d counsel for the petitioners that while Sri Bitul Neog will come within the pur view of the age relaxation, in respect of Sri Bipul Neog and Sri Ratul Boruah, t he authorities are required to consider their cases taking into account the Gove rnment Circulars dated 27.3.1980 followed by the Government Circular dated 4.1.1 992. While in the circular dated 27.3.1980, there was prescription of relaxatio n of age upto 40 years, but in supersession of the same, such age relaxation was extended upto 45 years by the subsequent circular dated 4.1.1992. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid two circulars, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in respect of the said two petitioners, who do not co me within the purview of age relaxation, they should be extended with further re laxation so as to enable them to get a fair consideration for promotion, as they have been suffering from stagnation in the service career. 8. Ms R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate refuting the claim o f the petitioners submits that the authorities having rightly relaxed the age li mit upto 32 years, there cannot be any further relaxation on the basis of the af oresaid two circulars dated 27.3.1980 and 4.1.1992. She further submits that th e said two circulars are applicable only in respect of the civil servants and no t in respect of the members of the Armed Force. 9. The circulars dated 27.3.1980 and 4.1.1992 are on the subject of princip les and instructions for considering the cases of relaxation of age limit for en try to Government service. There is no denial that the petitioners are all Gove rnment servants. No distinction as such has been made by the said circulars betw een the civil servants and the police servants so far as the relaxation of age i s concerned. Further, as has been held by the Apex Court in the decision report ed in (1997) 10 SCC 616 (R.K. Sethi and another v. Oil & Natural Gas Commission and others, the relaxation can be extended even in the individual cases wherever hardship is caused. It is the stand of the petitioners that they have been sta gnating in their service career and unless their age is relaxed as in-service-ca ndidates, same will lead to further deprivation. It is their case that their age is required to be condoned to eradicate the hardship taking a pragmatic view of the matter. 10. Considering the matter in its entirety, this writ petition is disposed o f directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners appropriate and consistently with the observations made above. Those, who are within the rel axed norms of age, needless to say that their cases will have to be considered by the respondents, but in respect of those petitioners, who do not conform to t he requirement of age even after relaxation, the authority may consider their ca ses as individual cases and as one-time-relaxation taking into account the afore said two circulars. 11. The aforesaid direction is only in respect of relaxation of age and not in respect of the selection of the petitioners. In the event of relaxation of th eir age in the above manner and if they are found to have come out successful in the selection, necessary follow up action will be taken by the respondents in a ccordance with law. 12. At this stage, Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners s ubmits that the subsequent vacancies have arisen, against which the petitioners with further relaxation of age and if found suitable, can be appointed. The res pondents while considering the case of the petitioners, shall bear in mind this aspect of the matter.