JUDGMENT : I.M. Iquddus, J. - These, are four writ petitions filed by the Petitioners approaching this Court against the impugned order dated 5.8.2005 of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack refusing to issue direction to the State Government to enhance the maximum age limit in the advertisement dated 16.7.2005 published in the daily newspaper "Sambad" for filling of certain vacancies including the vacancies of Pharmacists on contractual basis in the district of Bargarh under the Chief District Medical Officer, Bargarh. 2. Prayer has been made inter alia for quashing the advertisement vide Annexure-5 to the extent it fixed the maximum age limit as 32. 3. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ petitions are that the Petitioners are qualified to be appointed to the post of Pharmacists as they possess the requisite qualifications and they are anxiously waiting since 1993 onwards for selection and appointment to the post of Pharmacists, as according to them, the last advertisement for such post was issued in the year 1993. But the opposite parties issued advertisement on 16.7.2005 in the daily Newspaper "the Sambad" inviting applications in the prescribed format for selection to Paramedical posts including Pharmacists fixing the upper age limit as 32 years. Being aggrieved by the advertisement, they approached the State Administrative Tribunal for quashing of the advertisement claiming that that the maximum age limit should be enhanced by 12 years i.e. up to 44 years, as no advertisement was made since 1993 and the prospective candidates would be deprived of making application if the maximum age limit was not enhanced. They contended before the Tribunal that in other services the opposite parties always relaxed the upper age limit by adding such period during which no selection was made. They also brought to the notice of the Tribunal copy of the advertisement issued in the year 2003 for filling of the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officers wherein the maximum age limit was fixed as 44 years. The Tribunal refused to entertain the cases of the Petitioners holding that contractual appointment sought to be made pursuant to the advertisement are not civil post and therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain those cases. The Tribunal further held that fixing the maximum age limit is the exclusive jurisdiction of the appointing authority. Hence these writ petitions. 4. The Tribunal refused to entertain the cases of the Petitioners holding that contractual appointment sought to be made pursuant to the advertisement are not civil post and therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain those cases. The Tribunal further held that fixing the maximum age limit is the exclusive jurisdiction of the appointing authority. Hence these writ petitions. 4. In the counter affidavit it has been mentioned that the Government is bound to follow the Orissa Service Code which is a statutory rule framed under the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the age limit has been mentioned in the advertisement as per Rule 52 of the Orissa Service Code. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that it is not true that last selection for the post of Pharmacists was held in the year 1993. It has been mentioned specifically in paragraph-6 of the preliminary counter affidavit filed by the State that so far as Bargarh district is concerned, two posts of Pharmacists were filled up in the year 1999, 3 posts of Pharmacists in the year 2000 and similarly in the year 2003, one post of Pharmacist was filled up under Orissa Health System Development Project. Earlier the selection was centralized, but it was decentralized later on and the Director of Health Services, Orissa, Bhubaneswar vide letter dated 20.11.2002 has intimated that the Director, Information and Public Relation Department shall issue advertisement for engagement of Pharmacists on contract basis under Orissa Health System Development Project with World Bank Assistance in different districts of Orissa.In the said letter vacancies were notified for the districts of Bargarh-1, Bhadrak-1, Jajpur-1, Khurda-5 and Nayagarh-l. Therefore, it is not correct to say that since 1993 there was no advertisement to fill up the post of Pharmacist till 2003. As regards fixing the upper age limit at 44 in respect of Ayurvedic Medical Officer, it has been stated that as there was no advertisement since 1993 to fill up such posts, the State Government as a special case decided to relax the upper age limit by 12 years. 5. As regards fixing the upper age limit at 44 in respect of Ayurvedic Medical Officer, it has been stated that as there was no advertisement since 1993 to fill up such posts, the State Government as a special case decided to relax the upper age limit by 12 years. 5. Since the prayer for enhancement of maximum age limit is based on the fact that no advertisement was made since 1993 and it has been shown by the opposite parties and we have found that the last advertisement for filling up the post of Pharmacists was made in the year 2002, though for appointment on contractual basis with consolidated pay of Rs. 4,000/- per month for the districts of Bargarh, Bhadrak, Jajpur, Khurda and Nayagarh pursuant to which selection was made and consequently appointment letter was issued in the month of February, 2003 to the selected candidates, we do not want to go further into the merits of the case or the maintainability of the plea of the Petitioners. The advertisement in question as contained in Annexue-5 is for appointment/ engagement of contractual staff under the Chief District Medical Officer, Bargarh on consolidated salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month. 6. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or impropriety or manifest error in the impugned orders of the Tribunal. 7. The writ petitions are misconceived and, therefore, dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. S.C. Parija, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed