WP(C) 3177/2011 BEFORE HON BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR JUSTICE C.R.SARMA (Amitava Roy,J) Heard Mr Doley, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Dey, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court, Guwahati appearing for the respondents. The petitioner asserts that she had been appointed as a Copyist in the office o f the Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Golaghat against a regular post at a fix ed remuneration of Rs.900/- per month vide office order dated 3.11.2000 and that since then she has been rendering her unblemished services without any break. By advertisement No.1/2011, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat notified th e initiation of a process for filling up of five posts of Lower Division Assist ants and one post of Copyist in his establishment. Apart from the other conditio ns of eligibility as set out therein, the upper age was limited to be 38 years as on 1.10.11. There was also a reference that the candidates with previous expe rience would be accorded preference in the matter of selection. Though the peti tioner offered her candidature, she came to learn that the same was rejected bec ause of over age. She has disclosed that as on 1.1.2011 she was aged 42 years. As her verbal request for condonation of over age was declined, she approached this court for judicial intervention relying on Office Memorandum No. ABP-513/7 9/9 dated 27.3.1980 granting relaxation of age upto 40 years for recruitment t o various services and posts under the Government of Assam, for those who are already in the state service. Reliance was also placed on the Office Memorandum No.ABP- 73/89/17 dated 4.1.1992 further enhancing the upper age limit upto 45 years. The petitioner thus claimed that she was eligible for being considered a s she was within the permissible age limit of 45 years in terms of this Office M emorandum. As a plea was taken on behalf of the respondents that in terms of the Office Mem orandum dated 10.3.2008 the upper age limit has been scaled down to 38 years for general category candidates contending for employment in the state service, th is court declined the petitioner’s request to allow her to take the written exa mination scheduled to be held on 3.7.2011. Whereas, Mr Doley has urged that on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 4. 1.1992 the petitioner at all relevant times was eligible and that her candida ture could not have been rejected on the ground of over age, Mr Dey, on the bas is of the Office Memorandum dated 10.3.2008 pleaded to the contrary. The learned Standing counsel has also in order to reinforce his contention drawn our atte ntion to Rule 7(ii) of the Assam Chief Judicial Magistrates Establishment (Mini sterial) Service Rules, 1987( for short, hereafter referred to as the ’Rules’). He has urged that as in terms of Rule 7(ii) the upper age limit for recruitment to the post of LD Assistant has been fixed upto 38 years on the first day of th e year in which the examination is to be held, the petitioner in any view of the matter, cannot be held to be eligible and thus she was rightly debarred from participating in the selection process underway. Mr Doley has not been able to controvert either the text of Office Memorandum da ted 10.3.2008 or the mandate of Rule 7(ii) of the Rules. In the above view of the matter, we are constrained to hold that the relaxation as sought for, cannot be granted to the petitioner. However, before we part, we want to refer to Rule 17 of the Rules which vests the appointing authority w ith power to dispense with or relax the requirement of any provision of the rule s the operation of which according to him/her is likely to cause undue hardshi p in a particular case. As in the present case, according to the petitioner, her request for condonation of over age had been turned down by the appointing authority, considering the stage of the selection process as on date, we are not inclined to reopen this as pect by permitting the petitioner to reiterate the request on the basis of this provision of the Rules. We, however, make it clear that in near future if there is any recruitment process for which the petitioner is otherwise eligible and q ualified in terms of the provisions of the Rules as contemplated and if she off ers her candidature therefor, it would be open for her to make a request for con donation of over age by applying the provisions of Rule 17 of the Rules. In such an eventuality, the appointing authority would duly consider her request in acc ordance with the letter and spirit of the Rules bearing in mind that the petiti oner has been rendering her services to the establishment for the last several years. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.