WP(C) 3807/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam. By means of this writ p etition, the 2(two) petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondents t o appoint them as Stenographer Grade-III (Assamese) in the Secretariat Administr ation (Estt) Department. In fact, the matter was once decided by order dated 14. 11.2007 taking note of the stand of the respondents. For a ready reference, the order dated 14.11.2007 is quoted below :- 14.11.2007 Heard Mr. PK Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners. Written instructions have been placed before the Court by Mr. BJ Ghosh, learned Govt. Advocate to the effect that the Government has taken a decision to offer a ppointment to the candidates who have been selected and whose age is within the norms laid down for Government jobs. The further instructions are to the effect that all other cases will have to be rejected. In the order dated 10.10.2007 passed by the Court it has already been recorded t hat out of the three petitioners, two are below 45 years of age and being select ed, are prima facie entitled to be appointed. In view of the written instruction s placed before the Court today, two of the aforesaid three petitioners will be entitled to appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioners desires that the writ petition be closed on the basis of the offer made by the Government as recorded above. The writ petition is accordingly closed by permitting the Government to make app ointment of the selected candidates who are within the norms laid down for Gover nment jobs in so far age is concerned. The respondent State will act accordingly and expeditiously in the matter. This disposes of the writ petition. The written instructions placed before the Court by the learned Govt. Advocate b e placed on record. As per the aforesaid order, the Govt. was at liberty to make appointment of the selected candidates who were within the norms laid down for Govt. jobs i n so far as age is concerned. Direction was also issued to the State Govt. to ac t in the matter expeditiously. The aforesaid order was reviewed on 21.5.2008 on the basis of the review petition No. 50/2008 which was filed by the State respondents. The review appli cation was filed for recalling the order dated 14.11.2007 in so far as the same had recorded the finding to the effect that the two of the petitioners who were below 45 years of age were entitled to be appointed, was concerned. Be it stated here that the instant writ petition was analogously heard along with WP(C) 3808 /2007. Be it also stated here that the petitioner involved in the other writ pet ition i.e. WP(C) 3808/2007 has already been appointed and accordingly the said w rit petition has been disposed of today. While recalling the earlier order dated 14.11.2007 by the review order d ated 21.5.2008 in so far as the same was concerned with the finding recorded tha t 2 (two) of the petitioners were below 45 years of age, the Court also took not e of the fact that the petitioners involved in the 2 (two) writ petitions were s elected in the year 1995 and 2002 and that had the appointments being forthcomin g at the appropriate time, the question of their crossing the upper age limit wo uld not have arisen. It was also recorded in the order that this aspect of the m atter did not receive the Court’s attention at the time of passing of the order dated 14.11.2007, perhaps on the ground that the Court had already recorded its finding with regard to the entitlement of the 2 (two) petitioners in question. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 3.10.2007, the stand of the resp ondents was that the matter was under process and consideration and that mere pa ssing of the examination cannot confer the petitioners with any right to get app ointment. This aspect of the matter will have to be considered in the context th at the petitioner involved in WP(C) 3808/2007, namely, Shri Ankur Basumatary has already been appointed from the same very list. It is submitted that he was app ointed on 22.5.2008. Thus, the stand of the respondents that mere inclusion of t he names of the petitioners in the select list cannot confer them with the right s of appointment falls through. As regards the plea that might be raised by the respondents that the pet itioners have become over aged for appointment, same will have to be considered keeping in mind the fact that at the time of selection in 1995, the petitioners were within the age limit. Had the appointments been made in time, the question of their crossing the age limit would not have arisen. This aspect of the matter has already been recorded in the review order dated 21.5.2008. Even otherwise a lso, as reflected in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioners, the petit ioner No.2, namely, Shri Ghameswar Bhuyan was 41 years 11 months and 16 days on the date of writing the Annexure 1(A) letter dated 10.10.2007 by the Deputy Secr etary to the Govt. of Assam in the Secretariat (Admn) Estt. Department to the le arned State Counsel. The letter further reflects that the petitioner No.1 was ag ed 45 years 2 months & 20 days as on 01.01.2007. The above recording of age of the 2 (two) petitioners is in reference to the date 01.01.2007 but their age will have to be considered as on the date of the selection in 1995 and thereafter as on 26.10.2005, on which date the names o f the selected candidates of 1995 and 2002 selection were incorporated. Be it st ated here that with relaxation etc, the upper age limit is 45 years. Thus, on al l counts, both the petitioners are entitled to get consideration for appointment and there cannot be any impediment so far as their age is concerned. After all, the respondents after delaying the matter indefinitely, cannot take the plea th at the petitioners have become over aged. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed directing th e respondents to take necessary follow up action towards appointment of the peti tioners as expeditiously as possible but at any rate not later then 31.5.2011. There shall be no order as to costs.