JUDGMENT This is an application for stay of operation of the order of the learned Trial Judge appealed against. 2. The fact of the case is very distressing. It appears that the appellants/petitioners have passed basic training examination in the year 1980 onwards and passing the basic training petitioners registered their names in the local Employment Exchange and since then they are waiting for appointment as primary teachers in the District in question. 3. It is not in dispute that in the year 1984, 786 persons were appointed by passing and ignoring the claim of the petitioners. Prior to that also some candidates were appointed without considering the case of the petitioners. At that time according to the rules prevaling petitioners were entitled as a matter of course to get their cases considered for appointment as it is a well-Settled principle that the persons can have no right of appointment, but they have right that their cases should be considered along with other eligible candidates. Hence, it is a clear case that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have been violated grossly by the authority concerned. 4. It appears that the petitioners are 21 in number and they have no fault on their part and being the unemployed persons and they have silently crossed the age of 40 years which is now considered to be a bar of such appointment. The learned Trial Judge considered the matter and directed the Chairman of the Ad hoc Committee, Primary School Council of Dakshin Dinajpur to dispose of the case of the petitioners with a speaking order. 5. The Chairman of the Council considered the case of the petitioners sympathetically and admitted that because of the age bar their cases could not be considered and for this they have no fault of their own as the rules are standing in the way of the Chairman who is helpless to give benefits to the petitioners. 6. It is not in dispute that several hundreds of primary teachers were appointed in the District who were Juniors to the petitioner in enrolling their names in the Employment Exchange by-passing the claim of the petitioners without considering the case of the petitioners. They were left out and their cases were grossly discriminated. 6. It is not in dispute that several hundreds of primary teachers were appointed in the District who were Juniors to the petitioner in enrolling their names in the Employment Exchange by-passing the claim of the petitioners without considering the case of the petitioners. They were left out and their cases were grossly discriminated. Unless the Court appreciates the difficulty of the petitioners and grants proper relief, the fundamental right as guaranteed by under the Constitution of India will become a lip service when person's fundamental right has been violated at will by the authority concerned, the Court cannot remain as a mere spectator in connection with the condonation of age bar which was imposed. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of (1) Paschimbanga Prathamik Sikshak Samity & Ors. v. President, West Bengal Primary School, Council & Ors. reported in unreported judgments (Supreme Court), 1996(1) 494 has specially directed the authority concerned not to debar the petitioners from being considered for appointment solely on the ground that, they have crossed the age bar provided under the Rules. 8. In another case in (2) U. P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. v. U. P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh & Ors. reported in Supreme Court Service Rulings, Volume 9, page 68 the Supreme Court also held that-it is apparent that before considering the cases of the trainees, the requirements of their names being sponsored by the Employment Exchange would not be insisted upon. In so far as the age requirement is concerned, the same should be relaxed if age bar would come in the way of the trainee, in accordance with what is stated in that regard in the concerned service rule. 9. Accordingly, we are of the view that it is a fit and proper case where the case of the petitioner/appellants should be considered after condonation of the age bar for which they have not at all any responsibility. They are all unemployed youth and are admittedly duly qualified for the post as pointed out by the Chairman of the Council. 10. They are all unemployed youth and are admittedly duly qualified for the post as pointed out by the Chairman of the Council. 10. Accordingly, we are directing the local Employment Exchange to forward the names of 21 petitioners/appellants if their names have not yet been forwarded for appointment in the post of primary teachers as there are at present 497 vacancies in the said post under the Dakshin Dinajpur District Primary School Council and for which requisition has already been made and the Employment Exchange has forwarded some trained and untrained teachers. Petitioners' names should be so forwarded within ten days from the date of the communication of this order by the Employment Exchange and the authority concerned shall consider the cases of the petitioners along with other eligible candidates and select them if they are found suitable condoning the age bar. 11. In this connection it is also made clear that at the time when the appellants/petitioners have obtained training there was no marking system and they were simply declared passed. Subsequently, marking system was introduced. Accordingly, the authority concerned shall evolve reasonable approaches for the purpose of doing Justice to the candidates and they should not act mechanically as there was no marking. Their cases should be considered sympathetically in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and without creating any precedence. 12. The application is disposed of on the above terms. 13. In view of the above order we think that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the appeal pending. Accordingly, by consent of parties appearing the appeal is also treated as on day's list and disposed of accordingly. It is recorded that since no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents, allegations made in the appeal and the application are not admitted. There will be no order as to costs. Let a plain copy of this order, Countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocates for the parties as it Special case and on usual undertaking. Banerjee, J. Nand, J.