-- E>. SerialNo.ofOrder ---Do?t?order, Order with Signature' Office Note as toaction(ifany)takenonOrder • . 12.3.0 Hesent: Mr. A.Moulik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N.G. Sherpa, Advocate for the Petitioner.Mr.J.B. Pradhan and Mr. Kama Thinlay, Government Advocates for the RespondentsThewritpetition is taken up for consideration of its admission. Heard bothsides.TheStatehasfiledapreliminary objection as to the maintainabiHty of the writ petition. The State correctly points out that on the last occasion the learned counsel for thepetitionerincorrectlysubmittedonbehalfofthe petitioner that she would be over age in May, 2008. The -Armexure R-1 to the objection shows that for Government servants like writ petitioner the maxinum age linit shall be relaxed upto 40 and the vrit petitioner is only 34. 'The writ petitioner appeared at an examination for being selected as Assistant Engineer since she had been unable to obtain promotion to that post. This was in or about December 2006. She did se,ia- Date Order with Signature Office Note as to No. oj of action (if any) Order Order . taken on Order ' not succeed. As a counter blast to her failureshefiledthiswitpetitionin2007seekingto I . I reopen the appointment, promotion, deputation and work-charge employments of several respondents. In our opinion the wit Court is not tliere for the ventilation of the grudges of unsuccessful examinees. 'This wit petition does not deserve entertainment. It is summarily dismissed. (A.N. ay, CJ)(A..uba,J)