Judgment Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Sri Atul Kumar Bansal, Advocate for appellant. Sri J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. They are heard on admission. 2. Appellant Rakesh Kumar Singh has filed this Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules against the impugned judgment dated 05-07-2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 241 of 2007 (S/S). 3. Appellant Rakesh Kumar Singh filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding I directing the respondents to allow the petitioner for Special B.T.C. Training run by the Shiksha Parish ad in District Udham Singh Nagar. II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents authority not to reject the candidature of the petitioner for special B.T.C. course on the ground of age limit (above 40 years of age as on 1-7-2006) and to consider the candidature of the petitioner for special B.T.C. course in the light of Govt. Order dated 19-03-2005 as it relates to the relaxation in the age limit. III. To issue. any other writ, order of direction or grant such other further relief in favour of the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. IV. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner." 4. The petitioner, thus in substance, was seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents to grant relaxation in the matter of upper limit of the age prescribed in the Advertisement dated 09-07-2006. 5. The learned Single Judge, on a thorough consideration of the submission 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 and others Vs. State of U.P. and 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 petition vide impugned judgment dated 05-07-2007. 6. State of U.P. and 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 petition vide impugned judgment dated 05-07-2007. 6. Sri Atul Kumar Bansal, the learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the petitioner's writ petition as the petitioner was entitled to age relaxation in view of the fact that in the past also similarly situated candidates were granted age relaxation. 7. 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. 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. 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. 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." 8. Reverting to the case in hand, admittedly, there is no statutory provision providing for age relaxation. Merely because age relaxation was granted in the past, no right is created in favour of the petitioner to claim age relaxation. As the petitioner has no legally enforceable right to claim age relaxation, no writ of mandamus can be issued to the respondents to grant age relaxation to the petitioner in view of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court. 9. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment, which may warrant interference in this Special Appeal. 10. The Special Appeal therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.