Judgment Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for respondents. They are heard on admission. 2. The appellants have filed this Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules against the impugned judgment dated 05-07-2007 passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 233 of 2007 (S/S), 248 of 2007 (S/S) and 354 of 2007 (S/S). 3. In Writ Petition No. 233 of 2007 (S/S), following reliefs were sought: "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to consider the application for Special BTC Course and they may be directed to give the benefit to the petitioner of circular dated 19-03-2005, contained annexure no. 4 to this writ petition and further be pleased to direct the respondents that they may not reject the application of petitioner on the ground that the petitioner now has become overage. ii) Issue any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioner. iii) Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 4. In Writ Petition No. 248 of 2007 (S/S), following reliefs were sought: "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to not to reject the petitioners' candidature for Special BTC Course in pursuance to the advertisement dated 9-7-2006 on the ground of age. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents grant the benefit of age relaxation to the petitioners in the light of the order dated 19-3-2005. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. iv) Award the cost of the petition." 5. In Writ Petition No. 354 of 2007 (S/S), following reliefs were sought: "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioners for Special BTC Course and they may be directed to give the benefit to the petitioners of circular dated 19-03-2005, contained• annexure no. 5 to this writ petition and further be pleased to direct the respondents that they may not reject the application of petitioners on the ground that the petitioners now have become overage. 5 to this writ petition and further be pleased to direct the respondents that they may not reject the application of petitioners on the ground that the petitioners now have become overage. ii) Issue any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioners. iii) Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioners." 6. The petitioners, thus in substance, were seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents to grant relaxation in the matter of the upper limit of the age prescribed in the Advertisement dated 09-07-2006. 7. The learned Single Judge, on a thorough consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and following the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 461 of 2004 Devendra Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others reported in AWC 2004 (3) 1891, which was affirmed by the Apex Court, held that the writ petitioners were not entitled to any relaxation in the matter of age. The learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the writ petitions vide impugned judgment dated 05-07-2007. 8. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants vehementty argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the petitioners' writ petitions, as the petitioners were entitled to age relaxation in view of the fact that in the past also similarly situated candidates were granted age relaxation. 9. The Apex Court, in a recent judgment, while considering the similar submission in the case of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Vs. K. Jotheeswara Pillai reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1771, observed in paras 7, 8 & 9 : "7. In our opinion the reasons given by the learned Single Judge for allowing the writ petition are wholly untenable in law. Merely because on two earlier occasions the appellant granted exemption from eligibility criterion in respect of some employees cannot be a ground to grant relief to the writ petitioners. Even if some concession had been shown to some employees in the past it would not confer any right upon anyone seeking employment in future to claim exemption from eligibility criterion as a matter of right. In KV Rajalakshmiah Setty and another v. State of Mysore and another AIR 1967 SC 993, it was held as under in paragraph 12 of the Report:"12. In KV Rajalakshmiah Setty and another v. State of Mysore and another AIR 1967 SC 993, it was held as under in paragraph 12 of the Report:"12. There is some force in some of the contentions put forward on behalf of the State of Mysore. It is not necessary to test them as we find ourselves unable to uphold the contention of the appellants. No doubt some concession had been shown to the first batch of 41 persons and the batches of persons who had come in after the batch of 73 persons also received some concessions, but after all these were concessions and not something which they could claim as of right. The State of Mysore might have shown some indulgence to this batch of 63 persons but we cannot issue a writ of mandamus commending it to do so. There was no Service Rule which the State had transgressed nor has the State evolved any principle to be followed in respect of persons who were promoted to the rank of Assistant Engineers from surveyors. The indulgence shown to the different batches of persons were really ad hoc and we are not in a position to say what, if any, ad hoc indulgence should be meted out to the appellants before us." Therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge that by not granting exemption from age criterion the appellant had indulged in invidious discrimination is clearly erroneous law. 8. The learned Single Judge has also issued a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to consider the case of writ petitioner No.5 as to whether he was entitled for exemption from age qualification. As already mentioned the Rules do not make any provision for granting exemption except to the limited extent as provided in the second para of Rule 11. The principles, on which a writ of mandamus can be issued, are well settled and we will refer to only one decision rendered in The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. Sipahi Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2149, where this Court observed as under: "A writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case, where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limits of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance." There being no statutory provision or rule providing for exemption from eligibility criterion, the learned Single Judge clearly erred in issuing a writ of mandamus against the appellant directing it to consider the case of writ petitioner No.5 for granting him exemption from the rule providing for upper age limit for fresh appointment. 9. In view of the discussion made above the impugned judgments of the High Court cannot be sustained and must be set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order dated 20-11-1997 passed by the learned Single Judge and the judgment and order dated 21-1-2003 of the Division Bench are set aside and the writ petition filed by the contesting respondents is dismissed." 10. Reverting to the case in hand, admittedly, there is no statutory provision providing for age relaxation. Merely because the State Government though it proper to grant age relaxation in the past, no right is created in favour of the' writ petitioners for age relaxation. As the petitioners have no legally enforceable right to claim age relaxation, no writ of mandamus can be issued to the respondents to grant age relaxation to the petitioners in view of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court. 11. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment, which may warrant interference in this Special Appeal. 12. The Special Appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.