- (1.) Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. In view of very nature of impugned order passed by learned Court below, we are of the view that there is no scope to pass any stay. The stay application is dismissed.
(2.) The appeal is taken up as on day's list for hearing in view of very nature of order impugned.
(3.) The impugned order dated 13th April 2011 reads such: 13.4.11.- This writ application is filed by the petitioners for allowing them to participate in the selection process initiated by the respondent No. 3 for appointment of Group-C and Group-D Staff. According to the petitioners, a selection process was initiated by the respondent No. 3 in the year 2006 to fill-up the aforesaid vacancies. The respondent No. 5 sponsored the names of the eligible candidates by a communication dated March 9, 2007. Thereafter, the petitioners did not receipt any information from the respondent authority with regard to such selection process. An advertisement was published in The Statesman" on January 26, 2011 inviting applications from the eligible candidates to fill up the vacancies of Group-C and Group-D posts. The petitioners submitted their applications to the respondent No. 3 to allow them to participate in the above selection process condoning the age bar. Necessary to point out here that in the meantime all the petitioners crossed the age limit of the eligible candidates. In reply to the applications submitted by the petitioners the respondent No. 3 informed that by a communication dated February 28, 2011 no process for recruitment was started in the year 2006-07 in terms of the resolution dated February 24, 2011 of the Recruitment Committee. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in the year 2006 their names were sponsored by respondent No. 5 for consideration against the posts under reference. At that point of time all the petitioners were within the prescribed age limit. Therefore, they are entitled to appear in the selection process initiated by virtue of an advertisement dated January 26.2011. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that in the year 2006 no advertisement was published by the respondent authority inviting applications from the eligible candidates only the respondent No. 5 was requested to sponsor the names of the eligible candidates. Considering that aspect of the matter the respondent authority cancelled the above selection process. A fresh selection process was initiated in the year 2011 pursuant to the above advertisement dated January 26, 2011. Since all the petitioners crossed the prescribed age limit they were not eligible candidates. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as also considering the fact and circumstances of this case I find that no material is available on record to show that the respondent authority proceeded on the basis of the recruitment process initiated in the year 2006-07. The reason assigned for cancellation of the above selection process does not suffer from any impropriety. I do not find any nexus of the selection process initiated by the respondent authority pursuant to the advertisement dated January 26, 2011 with the selection process which had been initiated in the year 2006-07. Since the petitioners crossed the prescribed age limit I do not find any legally enforceable right in their favour to participate in the selection process under reference. Therefore, this writ petition stands dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs...;