By The Court—Heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri D.K. Upadhyaya and Sri S.P. Singh for the respondent.2. The respondent is working as a regular staff on the post of Library Assistant in Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Mahraj Medical University, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘the University’). He is in employment of the University since September, 2004 and he has been confirmed on the said post.3. The University advertised certain posts on 6.8.2010 to be filled in by direct recruitment from open market. The post of Public Relation Officer/Reception Welfare Officer is one such post which was also advertised.4. The respondent considering himself to be eligible for the post having requisite qualification, asked for permission to apply for the aforesaid post by his application dated 21.8.2010. The permission was granted under the signatures of the Registrar with certain conditions, which however, do not pertain to the age relaxation.5. The respondent did apply, but he apprehended that he would not be called for interview for the reason, he being over age and, therefore, for the first time on the date of interview i.e. 18.11.2010, he made an application/representation to the Registrar of the University, asking him to provide age relaxation, as was done in the case of Suresh Kumar Srivastava under Statute 29.01 of the first Statute of the University. No orders were passed on the said application/representation and the respondent was not allowed to appear or participate in the selection/interview.6. The respondent, before making the application/representation to the Registrar on 18.11.2010, i.e. on the date of interview, approached this Court by filing a writ petition on 15/16.11.2010, wherein he prayed for the following reliefs:“(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner and to permit him to participate in the interview for the post of (i) Public Relation Officer/Reception Welfare Officer and (ii) Social Worker/Samajik Karyakarta, ignoring the age bar, giving due weightage to his back services in the Medical University, and also to appoint him on the said post, if he is found suitable for the same.(b) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction that may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.(c) allow this writ petition with cost in favour of the petitioner.”7. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition in part mainly for the reason that in an identical matter, in another writ petition, out of which, Special Appeal No. 463 of 2010 was filed, the University agreed for granting relaxation in age and, therefore, it appears that the University authorities themselves were willing to consider the case of grant of relaxation in age and apparently for this reason, the concession was extended in Special Appeal No. 463 of 2010 on the basis of instructions received from the University authorities by the learned counsel for the Medical University.8. The learned Single Judge further observed as under:“This Court is of the considered view that the grant of relaxation in age to the employees of the University over and above in prescribed age, is a policy decision and this relaxation in age is to be given to all such candidates, who are the existing employees of the University. The University authorities cannot discriminate the candidates who have not approached this Court, if the University authorities decide to grant any relaxation in age to any existing employee of the University on the basis of directions issued by this Court or otherwise, in such situation it is incumbent upon the authorities to issue a Corrigendum providing therein a clause of age relaxation for the existing employees. The action of the University authorities is not only discriminatory in nature but also is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”9. With the aforesaid findings, a direction has been issued to the University to provide relaxation in age to the respondent and to all other similarly situated candidates, for which a corrigendum need be issued.10. The action of the University authorities is not only discriminatory in nature but also is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”9. With the aforesaid findings, a direction has been issued to the University to provide relaxation in age to the respondent and to all other similarly situated candidates, for which a corrigendum need be issued.10. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the respondent was not entitled for relaxation in age or even for its consideration, for the reason; (a) Statute 29.01 of the first Statute of the University was not applicable in the case of the Medical University, which is a constituent college; (b) the respondent never approached nor applied for age relaxation before the University and no such prayer having been made to the University itself, the writ petition straightaway could not have been filed; (c) the age relaxation was to be granted or if at all can be granted, must be only for some special reasons, which absolutely lack in the case of the respondent, as no such reason has been pleaded even before this Court; (d) the relaxation in age was dependent upon the prior approval of the Director of Education, who obviously does not have any role or control over the Medical University and, therefore, this itself speaks that the statute aforesaid is not applicable in the case of the respondent; (e) under Section 42 of CSMMU Act, 2002, the first Statute of the University has been adopted with certain adaptation and modification, but it does not mean that the Statutes which are not applicable to constituent colleges would stand applied to them also, though they relate to associated colleges, and lastly (f) the University has not taken any such policy decision for granting relaxation in age, assumptions made by the learned Single Judge is not based on any material, nor any such policy decision was on record.11. There are three kinds of colleges; (1) affiliated to the Lucknow University; (2) associated colleges; and (3) constituent colleges. The service conditions of all the colleges are different and so far the constituent colleges are concerned, they form the faculty of Lucknow University itself and, therefore, Statute 29.01, which falls under Chapter XXIII of the first Statute of the University relating to associated colleges, was not applicable to the constituent colleges.12. The service conditions of all the colleges are different and so far the constituent colleges are concerned, they form the faculty of Lucknow University itself and, therefore, Statute 29.01, which falls under Chapter XXIII of the first Statute of the University relating to associated colleges, was not applicable to the constituent colleges.12. Further, it has been urged that relaxation in age cannot be claimed as a matter of right nor any direction could have been issued for granting such relaxation to all the employees similarly situated, even though they had not applied for the same and the relaxation could not be granted otherwise, unless special reasons exists, which necessarily has to be determined in each and every case separately. No general direction thus, could have been issued to provide relaxation in age, to all the employees.13. Distinguishing the case of Suresh Kumar Srivastava in Special Appeal No. 463 of 2010, learned counsel submitted that the concession aforesaid was given therein as a particular case where the selection had not started, but that too without considering the legal position as to whether any such relaxation can be granted under the Statute or not.14. His submission is that the concession given by the University in one case under the given facts and circumstances of the case, would not confer any right upon the respondent or any other similarly situated person to claim age relaxation as of right, moreso when the rules do not permit relaxation in age.15. Learned counsel for the respondent, in response, submitted that once the University has taken a policy decision to grant age relaxation to the regular employees of the University in the matter of direct recruitment, as has been observed by the learned Single Judge and which is evident from the order passed in Special Appeal No. 463 of 2010, the University is not at liberty to pick and choose in the matter of grant of relaxation in age, as such an action would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.16. On considering the arguments raised and the relevant statute, it cannot be disputed that the relaxation in age for the purpose of seeking employment under direct recruitment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. On considering the arguments raised and the relevant statute, it cannot be disputed that the relaxation in age for the purpose of seeking employment under direct recruitment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. May be in special circumstances, as provided under Statute 29.01, the relaxation in age can be asked for, if the said statute applies to the colleges or to the employees, who seek such relaxation. Even if such relaxation is asked for and can be made available to an employee or any person, the same can be granted only on special reasons, which means special reason in favour of the person who is claiming relaxation in age, and that too, with the prior approval of the Director of Education.17. Leaving aside the question whether the statute aforesaid applies to the respondent or not, the fact remains that the respondent ought to have applied to the University for relaxation in age, much before the time when he applied or at least at the time of seeking permission for applying for the post and some special reasons could have been shown, either by him or by the University, for which relaxation can be granted.18. The respondent admittedly has not applied for relaxation in age before the University at any point of time, i.e. neither at the time of seeking permission for applying for the post nor at any point of time before the selection started, namely, the interview started. It was only on 18.11.2010 that he made a representation to the Registrar of the University, wherein he asked for relaxation in age, but he did not mention any special circumstance on which he was seeking relaxation. The only ground is that the relaxation was given in the case of Suresh Kumar Srivastava, therefore, he be also granted relaxation. The application made by him is not in accordance with Statute 29.01, the benefit of which, the respondent is claiming.19. So far the concession on the part of the University given in the case of Suresh Kumar Srivastava is concerned, that would not be a binding precedent nor it can be taken to be a policy decision of the University, providing relaxation in age to all the employees similarly situated. It was a particular case where the Court passed an order on the basis of the concession given in the facts and circumstances of the given case. It was a particular case where the Court passed an order on the basis of the concession given in the facts and circumstances of the given case. Such a concessional order cannot be enforced nor can be made the basis of the claim, unless the respondent had shown the facts and circumstances or the special reasons, justifying relaxation in age in his own case also.20. We with deep respect cannot subscribe to the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, that merely in one case on concession made by the University, the Court required the matter to be considered by the University wherein relaxation in age was granted, does mean, that the University has taken any policy decision for granting relaxation in age to its employees. A policy decision has to be a conscious and deliberate decision. And such a decision has to be in accordance with the rules, if any prescribed. There is no such decision taken by the University. It can, therefore, be safely concluded that the University has not taken any such policy decision as has been observed by the learned Single Judge.21. Also, at best, the relaxation granted in one case, can neither create binding precedent, nor can be said to be legal and in accordance with rules. The Court will not issue a mandamus or direction for passing orders, which cannot be passed under rules.22. Alternatively, it has also been argued and which argument has force that concession given by the University or by the counsel, which runs against the statute cannot be a binding precedent nor can be enforced for all times to come. If the statute does not permit relaxation in age or if it permits such relaxation but prescribes a procedure for granting relaxation in age, the relaxation cannot be granted, unless the conditions aforesaid stand satisfied.23. We also find force in the argument of the counsel for the University that the Statute 29.01 falling under Chapter XXIII, relating to associated colleges cannot be said to be applicable in the case of constituent colleges.24. We also find force in the argument of the counsel for the University that the Statute 29.01 falling under Chapter XXIII, relating to associated colleges cannot be said to be applicable in the case of constituent colleges.24. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in any case, in the aforesaid special appeal, the concerned employee applied for relaxation in age before the selection started, whereas in the present case, the application was made for seeking relaxation after the selection started, and that this Court only on agreed terms, issued a direction only for consideration of his case for relaxation in age, the University in its own wisdom, however, granted relaxation, which does not mean that this Court had issued any direction for granting relaxation.25. Since relaxation cannot be granted under the statutes, the Court will not issue any such mandamus.26. For the reasons stated above, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20.11.2010 cannot be sustained, which is hereby set aside.27. The special appeal is allowed. Consequently, the writ petition is also dismissed.(Appeal allowed)_____________