IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 212 of 2009 Bhagwati Prasad Pant …..…… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ....……… Respondents Coram:- Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Present: Mr. Amish Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. Date of Decision: 23.03.2010 J.S. Khehar, C.J. (Oral) The solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer having been advertised after many years, it was imperative for the respondents to grant relaxation of the age, while advertising the posts. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the advertisement, copy whereof has been placed on the record of the instant writ petition as Annexure-3, in order to substantiate the plea that no relaxation has been granted by the respondents in so far as the requirement of age is concerned. 2. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the requirement of age depicted in the advertisement (Annexure-3) is in consonance with the statutory rules governing the conditions of service for appointment to the posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to invite our attention to any precedent in order to substantiate his claim, that in case an advertisement is issued after many years, the authorities are bound to grant relaxation in age. Even otherwise, it is not open to the authorities to relax the conditions of appointment depicted by the statutory rules, and as such, we are of the view that the instant writ petition is devoid of any merit. The same is accordingly hereby dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 23.03.2010 P.Singh