JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri Anand Dubey, Sri Vinod Pandey holding brief of Sri Anoop Srivastava for respondents 4 and 5 and Sri Sanjay Bhasin for the State. 2. The appellant, admittedly is working on the post of Assistant Librarian Clerk in the institution in question. A post of Cataloguer fell vacant in the institution. For the said purpose, an advertisement has been published and applications have been invited from open market. There is no dispute that the post is to be filled in by direct recruitment. 3. The appellant’s grievance is that since he is overage, he is entitled for relaxation in age in terms of statute 18.7 of the First Statute of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh Vishwavidhyalaya, 1978, which according to the appellant is applicable in the present institution, it being affiliated to the said University. 4. Statute 18.7 does permit age relaxation with the prior sanction/approval of the Director of Higher Education. 5. The aforesaid statute though does permit age relaxation of five years, but it also provides that such relaxation must be given in some special circumstances. 6. The rules thus, cannot be taken to be a rule of course, i.e. applicable in all selections of direct appointment. There may be circumstances, which may fall within the definition of special cases/special circumstances or so to say exceptional circumstances under which a candidate may be entitled to age relaxation in terms of the aforesaid provisions for any post, which is to be filled in by direct recruitment, but each and every employee or a prospective candidate who has crossed the maximum age, as prescribed in the advertisement, would not be entitled in a routine manner to seek relaxation in age. 7. The words that relaxation may be granted only for a period of five years and that too in special circumstances, have to be given their true meaning and they cannot be casually interpreted. In case any other interpretation is given and the aforesaid clause for granting relaxation in age is taken as a right by every incumbent, the whole process of selection would stand vitiated and the requirement of laying down a cut-off age prescribing minimum and maximum age limit, would become redundant. It will also create an atmosphere of uncertainty amongst the persons who intend to apply against such vacancy. This cannot be the intention of the rules. 8. It will also create an atmosphere of uncertainty amongst the persons who intend to apply against such vacancy. This cannot be the intention of the rules. 8. Admittedly, the appellant is working on the post of Assistant Librarian Clerk. The post of Cataloguer is not in the channel of promotion from the post of Assistant Librarian Clerk. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid post is to be filled in by direct recruitment and, therefore, all the persons who fall within the eligibility criteria can apply. The appellant does not fall within the category of eligible persons, therefore, he cannot claim his eligibility on the ground that he is working in the institution itself and, therefore, he can be treated as a departmental candidate. 9. Here, it may be noted that whenever any Government department or any institution or for that matter any employer wants to give an opportunity to the departmental candidates to apply against the post which is to be filled in by direct recruitment, such a condition is mentioned in the advertisement itself and in such circumstances, age relaxation is also provided, but in the instant case, this having not been done, the appellant cannot claim age relaxation. 10. We also take notice of the fact that nothing has been brought on record to infer that any special circumstances existed, under which the appellant could be given age relaxation as per statute 18.7. 11. We thus, do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. The special appeal is dismissed. —————