Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the denial of opportunity to undertake the training course for the Lab Technion. 3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is eligible candidate, but he has been denied opportunity of the training course illegally by the respondents. 4. Appears from the facts that vide Annexure-1 some age relaxation was given and age limit of in-service candidates has been increased from 35 to 40 years. The respondents in their reply in para No. 3 stated that earlier only Class IV employees were entitled to undertake the training of Laboratory Attendant and it is only after issuance of Annexure-1, the petitioner could become eligible for the said training. Therefore, so far as initial eligibility of the petitioner, i.e., not under challenge, but the respondents have come up with a case that the maximum limit for giving training is 40 years. It appears from the writ petition itself that in the year 2003, the petitioner was of the age of 42 years. 5. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.