WP(C) 2858/2011 BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR JUSTICE C.R.SARMA ( Amitava Roy,J) Heard Mr Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr A Bhattacharj ee, learned counsel representing the Gauhati High Court on behalf of Mr SS Dey, Advocate and Ms B.Goyal, learned State counsel for the official respondents. The pleaded case of the petitioner in short is that, he has been working as a Copyist in the establishment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gol aghat on temporary basis since 1995. According to him, following a selection he was appointed in the above capacity on daily wage basis initially for a period of two months at a fixed pay of Rs.900/- per month. This term was thereafter ext ended from time to time, the latest in the series being by the order dated 15.2 .2011. Prior thereto on 10.1.2011, in view of his continuous unblemished servic e, he had submitted a representation before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrat e, Golaghat praying for his regularization. As by then, he had crossed the upper age limit for seeking fresh appointment in other government establishments, he thereby prayed for relaxation of his said deficiency. Incidentally, though his representation remained unattended, on the next date i.e. 11.1.2011 an advertis ement was issued from the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat inv iting candidature for five posts of LD Assistant therein. In the advertisement, apart from reciting the educational qualification and other eligibility criteri a, the upper age limit was fixed at 30 years as on 1st January,2011. In case of reserved categories candidates, this condition was relaxable as per the relevan t rules in force. As the petitioner on the last date of receipt of the applicati ons as mentioned therein ie.19.2.2011 was aged 46 years and thus ineligible to participate in the ongoing process, he is before this court seeking redress. Mr Mahanta has urged that having regard to the long uninterrupted and u nblemished services rendered by the petitioner who had been engaged as a Copyist following a selection, he is entitled to a direction to have his services reg ularized. In the alternative, he has urged that in the attendant facts and circu mstances his impediment of overage may be condoned and he be allowed to partic ipate in the process initiated by the advertisement dated 11.1.2011. The learned counsel for the respondents however has urged that as the pe titioner had been appointed on daily wage basis, he is not entitled to any orde r for his regularization merely due to length of the services rendered by him . Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts as well as the documents annexed to the writ petition, we do not feel inclined to accede to the prayer for regularization. The selection process initiated by the advertisement dated 11.1.2011, as it is submitted at the Bar is governed by the provisions of the Assam Chief J udicial Magistrates Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules,1987 ( for short, hereafter referred to as the ’Rules’). The age norm mentioned in the advertisem ent is in terms of the prescription of Rule 7 thereof. Rule 17 of the rules v ests the appointing authority with the power to dispense with or relax the requ irement of any rule operation of which according to it may cause undue hardshi p in any particular case. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s appointment as a Copyis t in the establishment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat on da ily wage basis was preceded by a selection as is evident from his appointment o rder dated 25.1.1995 and that he had rendered continuous services since then til l date, it is considered appropriate to dispose of the instant petition by leav ing him at liberty to file an appropriate representation before the appointing authority in terms of the rules seeking relaxation of his overage so as to enabl e him to participate therein. Ordered accordingly. If such a representation is submitted, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat would consider and d ispose of the same having regard to the service background of the petitioner an d the power of relaxation conferred on him by the aforesaid rules. It is made c lear that this court hereby has not directed the learned Chief Judicial Magistr ate, Golaghat to relax the overage of the petitioner, but it is expected that t he said authority would be realistic and objective in taking a decision on his request. It is submitted at the Bar that the interview is fixed on 3.7.2011. On b eing queried by this Court, Mr Mahanta submits that the representation would be submitted within three(3) days hereafter. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrat e, Golaghat would take a decision thereon within ten(10) days from the filing of such representation. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.