WP(C) 2615/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI Heard Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. J. Singh, le arned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1, 2 and 5. Heard also Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent No.3. None has appear ed for the respondent No.4. The petitioner’s case is, in brief, thus: An advertisement was published, on 24. 09.2009, by the CDPO, Bhergaon ICDS Project, for filling up of 132 vacant posts of Anganwadi Worker for various centers. One of the requisite conditions, mentio ned in the said advertisement, was that the age of the candidate shall be betwee n 18 to 44 years as on 01.01.2009. The petitioner, pursuant to the said advertis ement, applied for selection and appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker for 93 No. GP Mill Anganwadi Center. The petitioner was interviewed, but due to som e public complaint for irregularities in the process of selection, an enquiry wa s conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Udalguri, and the inquiry report, dated 24.02.2011, was forwarded to the Joint Secretary, BTAD, for necessary approval. In the said enquiry, it was pointed out that the petitioner was short of 13 days in completing 18 years as on 01.01.2009 and, hence, her selection was not as pe r guidelines. Aggrieved by the enquiry report, so submitted, the petitioner made a representation, dated 28.02.2011, to the CDPO, Bhergaon ICDS Project, for rel axation of her age. As the representation has not been disposed of, the petition er has filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of necessary directions to the respondents to, in effect, appo int her by relaxing the condition as regards the age mentioned in the said adver tisement. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that selection and appointment cannot be made without adhering to advertisement. It was one of the conditions, in order to make a candidate eligible, that he/she must have co mpleted 18 years as 01.01.2009 and must not have exceeded the age of 44 years as on 01.01.2009. In the present case, the petitioner was, admittedly, 13 days short of completing 18 years as on 01.01.2009. She was, therefore, a minor, when she had applied pu rsuant to the said advertisement. Being a minor, the petitioner could not have a pplied and she could not have been selected and appointed. Viewed thus, it is cl ear that the respondents cannot, in law, either relax or condone the prescribed age, which was mentioned in the advertisement aforementioned. Because of what have been pointed out above, it becomes clear that the petitione r has not been able to make out any case warranting this Court’s interference in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. This writ petiti on is, therefore, not admitted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. No costs.