Judgment Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner in all these writ petitions belong to Backward Class community Most Backward Class community. They also got Diploma in Electronic and Communication Engineering (ECE) and Diploma in Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EEE) respectively. The petitioner in W.P.13049/09 had also undergone Apprenticeship training. The petitioners got their names registered in the Employment Exchange. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they had been waiting for many years for sponsoring their names through the Employment Exchange for the respective post of Technical Assistant and Electrician in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and since they did not get any opportunity and when they found that they were calling for names for the above said posts of Technical Assistant and Electrician, they have come forward to file the present writ petitions seeking for a direction to the sixth respondent to sponsor their names for appointment to the posts of Technical Assistant and Electrician and also to give a call letter to enable the petitioners to attend the interview conducted by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 4. The only contention raised by the petitioners was that there was a ban order in recruitment of employees by the Government which are also made applicable to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and subsequently the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.98, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(s) Department dated 17.07.2006. In the said Government Order, the Government took a policy decision to grant 5 years exemption from the upper age limit in view of the ban order being lifted and pursuant to the said policy decision, the State Government directed that in respect of recruitment to all State and Subordinate Service by direct recruitment, the relaxation from the upper age limit can be given for a period of five years. 5. The respondent, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board adopted the existing G.O. by full proceedings F.B.No.25, Administrative Branch dated 210. 2006. Though the said order states that necessary amendment to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations will be issued separately, the learned standing counsel states that till date, no such amendment have been made. 6. On notice from this Court, the respondent has filed counter affidavit dated 112. 2009. In the counter affidavit, they have stated that the said Government order has been implemented by the Board in respect of the present recruitment and in paragraph No.6 it was averred as follows:- "6. 6. On notice from this Court, the respondent has filed counter affidavit dated 112. 2009. In the counter affidavit, they have stated that the said Government order has been implemented by the Board in respect of the present recruitment and in paragraph No.6 it was averred as follows:- "6. While requesting the Employment Exchange to sponsor the names of Diploma holders, the Board has requested it to send the names of candidates who satisfy the age recruitment as indicated below as on 01.07.2007 based on the orders of the Government in which the following age concession were given. SC/ST - 40 years as on 01.07.2007 BC/MBC/DC - 37 years as on 01.07.2007 OC - 35 years as on 01.07.2007" 7. It is stated that the date of age was recommended on 01.07.2000 for the recruitment and for BC and MBC categories the upper age was fixed as 37 years whereas as per the Statutory service still in force is 32 years. In the case of the petitioners in all these writ petitions, even at that time the petitioners were 32 years respectively and when they filed the present writ petitions their age was 40 years, 40 years, 39 years, 40 years and 41 years respectively . Therefore the question of giving mandamus to Board contrary to the Statutory is not permissible. Since the respondent implemented the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.98 even without any statutory amendment, the prayer made by the petitioners cannot be countenanced by this Court. The writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.