- (1.) Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants.
(2.) Assailing the judgment and order dated 25th August, 1995 passed in C. O. No. 14404 (W) of 1995, this appeal has been preferred.
(3.) The impugned reads such:- 25.8.95 - Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties, it appears that although the petitioners' names had been considered in the year 1989, they were not considered for appointment. Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the respondents have the authority to condone the deficiency. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners' names were sponsored as far back in 1989, no relief can be granted in this writ application. However, in the event there arises any future vacancies and the petitioners apply pursuant thereto and they are found suitable in terms of the Police Regulations of Bengal and if in case the respondents consider it desirable, fit and proper to condone the deficiency, the case may be considered in accordance with law. Moreover, if the petitioners are selected the respondents may also consider the desirability of condoning the age bar. This order may not be treated to be a direction upon the respondents. It is made clear that such condonation of deficiency as also relaxing the age bar, if any, would depend upon the discretion of the respondents. This writ application is disposed of with the above observation. Liberty is given to the petitioners to communicate the order to the respondents concerned.;