WP(C) 2354/2010 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. N Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M Khataniar , learned standing counsel appearing for the official respondents. The petitioner who claim to have served as a stipendiary teacher from 18.12.1993 in the Baizkhani LP School in Karimganj District and whose service was terminat ed on 13.11.1997 (Annexure-5), has recently filed the present petition with a tw o fold prayer. The first prayer is to release his stipend for 18.12.1993 to 13.1 1.1997 and the second prayer is to relax the age criteria for regular recruitmen t, while considering his candidature for appointment to the vacancies of LP Scho ol teachers. It appears from the averments made in the counter affidavit of the Director of E lementary Education (DEE), Assam that the petitioner was appointed against a non -existent post. It also appears that the name of the petitioner does not figure amongst the 22 teachers whose appointment was found to be legal after an inquiry at the relevant time. But since the petitioner was not amongst the 22 regularly appointed persons and was given appointment in non-existent post de-hors the Ru les, the respondents submit that the petitioner cannot claim any benefit from su ch service. It is also averred that the petitioner is not in the same footing and is not ent itled to the benefit of this Court’s order passed on 6.4.2000 in CR No.5644/1997 (Smt. Sukla Dutta & others vs. State of Assam), as he has belatedly approached this Court 13 years, after he was terminated from service. Considering the above and the fact that the petitioner is now aged 53 years, I s ee no reason to give any direction for enabling him to apply for regular vacanci es, by considering relaxation of the age criteria. Furthermore, since the petitioner was terminated from service in the year 1997 a nd has belatedly approached this Court after 13 years, I consider him to be guil ty of laches and accordingly I see no justification to give any direction for pa yment of salary, bearing in mind the averments on the nature of his appointment, made in the counter affidavit. The writ petition is accordingly found devoid of merit and the same is dismissed .