The petitioners who are educated unemployed youths have approached this Court praying for a direction to be issued to the respondents for allowing them to appear in the test for appointment to the post of Jamadar in the Manipur Rifles by relaxing upper age limit fixed for the post. 2. I have heard Mr. HS Paonam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, learned Advocate General, Manipur assisted by Mr. A. Mahendro Singh. 3. The respondent No.2 issued a requisition/notification dated 7th August, 1998 for recruitment of 24 (twenty four) posts of Jamadar. The minimum prescribed age is 18 and maximum 25 years as on 31.7.98 (upper age limit relaxable upto 5 years in case of SC/ST candidates, copy of the notification is annexed as Annexure A/7 to the writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioners are over-aged. Their age range from 28 to 29 years. It is also admitted that there has been a ban on filling up of vacancies against direct recruitment quota in various posts and service for the period from 23.1.92 to 8.2.1996. Subsequently Govt lifted the ban for such direct recruitment and in that connection a notification being, No.l4/6.95-DP Annexure A/1 was issued which is reproduced below : “Notification Imphal, the 1st June, 1996 Subject: Whereas there was a ban on filling up vacancies against direct recruitment quota in various posts and services under the Govt of Manipur from 23.1.1992 to1996; And whereas the Governor is of the opinion that it is necessary to give to the persons, who were eligible for appointment against such vacancies but who have become over-aged for such appointment after lifting the ban, an opportunity to apply for and be considered for appointment against such vacancies; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the Relaxation Clause of the relevant recruitment rules, the Governor is pleased to order that the upper age-limit shall be relaxed by 4 (four) years only for the purpose of 1st direct recruitment made to such posts and services, as a one time measure. By order and in the name of the Governor. Sd/- (Kh Raghumani Singh) Under Secretary to the Govt of Manipur.” 4. After lifting the ban as aforesaid, there was a direct recruitment for 19 (nineteen) posts of Jamadars pursuant to an advertisement being No.E/31/17/96- PHQ (Admn) dated 18th June, 1996. By order and in the name of the Governor. Sd/- (Kh Raghumani Singh) Under Secretary to the Govt of Manipur.” 4. After lifting the ban as aforesaid, there was a direct recruitment for 19 (nineteen) posts of Jamadars pursuant to an advertisement being No.E/31/17/96- PHQ (Admn) dated 18th June, 1996. Subsequently another requisition/notification dated 7.8.1998 was issued for recruitment of 24 (twenty four) posts of Jamadars (Annexure A/7). Now, the only question to be determined is whether the petitioners are entitled to join/participate in the selection test for recruitment to the post of Jamadar as per the aforesaid requisition/notification dated 6.8.1998 at Annexure A/4). 5. Mr. HS Paonam, learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the notification No.l4/6/95-DP dated 6.8.1998 and submitted that relaxation of upper age limit will be available for appointment by direct recruitment made upto 3.12.1998 (Annexure A/4). The said notification at Annexure A/4 is as follows : “Govt of Manipur Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division) Notification Imphal, the 6th August, 1998 No. 14.6.95-DP : In continuation of this Govt notification of even number dated 1.6.1996, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to issue the clarification that the upper age relaxation by 4 (four) year being a one time measure shall be applicable to all the first direct recruitment done on or before 31 December, 1998, and such relaxation shall automatically stand dispensed with after 31.12.1998. By order and in the name of the Governor. Sd/-(Kh Raghumani Singh) Deputy Secretary (DP), Govt of Manipur” 6. From a plain reading of the aforesaid notifications dated 1.6.1996 (Annexure A/1) and dated 6.81998 (Annexure A/4) as quoted above, it is found that the relaxation clause as regards upper age limit is available as a one time measure only in order to give an opportunity to those persons who could not apply for the post because of the existence of the ban on direct recruitment during the period from 23.1.1992 to 8.2.1996. Therefore, this benefit will only be available in case of first recruitment made to such posts and services just after lifting of the ban. Further, the notification dated 6th August, 1998 at Annexure A/4 clarified that such benefit of relaxation will be available in case of first direct recruitment done before 31.12.1998 only. 7. Therefore, this benefit will only be available in case of first recruitment made to such posts and services just after lifting of the ban. Further, the notification dated 6th August, 1998 at Annexure A/4 clarified that such benefit of relaxation will be available in case of first direct recruitment done before 31.12.1998 only. 7. In the present case first recruitment for 19 (nineteen) posts of Jamadar was made in the year, 1996 as found in Annexures D/l and D/2, and the present recruitment as requisitioned under Annexure A/7 dated 7.8.1998 is second recruitment to the post of Jamadar. Thus, as per the notifications mentioned above the relaxation of age will not be available to any direct recruitment made after the first appointment to the post after lifting of the ban. 8. The question of fixation or relaxation of upper age limit is a matter falling within the domain and wisdom of the competent authority. When such age limit has been fixed or relaxed by the authority, may be by a legislative action or by an executive action, the Court cannot sit upon such action of the authority, unless the aforesaid action is challenged on the ground which are available under law, viz, unconstitutional, ultra virus, unreasonable, etc. Here the relaxation of upper age limit was made after a policy decision of the Govt in order to accommodate those persons who could not apply for the post because of reasons beyond their control and this chance was made available to only in one appointment to the post and also it was made within a certain period. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even though the petitioners could not/ did not apply to the first appointment as found in Annexures D/l and D/2 they should be allowed to apply and contest in the second appointment as requisitioned under Annexure A/1 and as per the recital found in Annexure A/4 that such facility is available upto 31.12.1998, is not tenable under law as the petitioners did not avail of the chance in the first appointment. Accordingly, the action of the respondent Govt in not allowing the petitioners to take part in the second appointment cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the action of the respondent Govt in not allowing the petitioners to take part in the second appointment cannot be interfered with. On the contrary, if the application is allowed it will cause discrimination to a category of persons who are similarly situated with the petitioners namely those who did not avail/could not avail in the first appointment and to those who have not approached this Court for allowing them to join and contest in the second appointment. Thus, granting of relief to the petitioners in such situation would be against the principles of equality clause of the Constitution. 9. For the aforesaid reasons and conclusion, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. Interim order passed by this Court on 4.11.1998 stand vacated. No costs.