- (1.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any reason to consider interference in this appeal against the order dated 09.07.2012 as passed in CWP No. 7993/2011 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to accept the prayer of the petitioner for age relaxation in recruitment to the post of Technical Helper in the respondent Department. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition with a short order that, in its entirety, reads as under:- "The application submitted by the petitioner for the purpose of consideration for recruitment to the post of Technical Helper came to be rejected by the respondents as the petitioner was over age. The stand of the petitioner is that no vacancies were advertised for pretty long time and therefore, relaxation should have been granted to him. It is also asserted that the petitioner is overage by one month 18 days only. As per the respondents after acquiring eligibility by the petitioner regular process of selection was conducted for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Technical Helper in the year 2009, as such, he had an opportunity to get himself employed. The petitioner did not avail that opportunity and now he wants relaxation on the count that the vacancies were not advertised in the year 2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that in the year 2009 the petitioner possessed eligibility to be considered for appointment as Technical Helper but he did not avail opportunity. In such circumstances, I do not find any just reason to extend any relaxation now to the petitioner in the maximum age limit. The petition for writ, therefore, is dismissed. No costs."
(2.) IN the given fact situation and the admitted position that in the year 2009, the petitioner was indeed possessing eligibility and the recruitments were indeed made but the petitioner-appellant did not avail of the opportunity, the claim as sought to be made for age relaxation with reference to the allegations that the recruitment was not held in the year 2010 could not have been countenanced. In the given set of facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge cannot be said to have erred in declining to exercise writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner; and no case for interference in the intra-court appeal is made out. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.;