Per M. Yaqoob, J. 1. Dissatisfied with the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 10.10.2013, instant Appeal is preferred. 2. Vide notification No. 01 of 2008 dated 01.01.2008, issued by Deputy Commissioner, Budgam, applications were invited for filling up vacancies of Dental Surgeon in District Budgam on contract basis. On completion of selection process, respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) figured at serial No.5 but was found overage. He filed Writ Petition (SWP) No.1738/2009 along with one Dr. Abdul Waheed, projecting therein that the similarly situated candidates who were lower in merit as compared to him were engaged in relaxation of upper age vide OM No.GAD(Adm) 398/2007-V(ii) dated 02.09.2008. While disposing of said writ petition, it has been observed as under: Admittedly, the petitioners were selected for being appointed on contractual basis on the posts of Dental Surgeon in District Budgam. It is not in dispute that the Government has accorded approval for relaxation of upper age limit in favour of some doctors. It is also not in dispute that the representation was filed by the petitioners seeking relaxation in upper age limit." It has been further observed that the petitioners cannot be discriminated, therefore, direction was issued to consider claim of the petitioners for accord of relaxation in upper age limit, as has been done in the case of similarly circumstanced persons. 3. In compliance whereof, case of the writ petitioner has been considered but rejected on the ground that he was not similarly situated as in the case of others, age was to be relaxed up to two years whereas in the case of Writ Petitioner, six years were to be relaxed. Government did not find any merit for considering grant of relaxation in his upper age bar as he was neither exceptionally qualified nor outstanding candidates, as mandated by Government order No.1500-GAD of 2000 dated 21.12.2000. 4. As per Government order No.1500-GAD of 2000 dated 21.12.2000, relaxation is permissible in favour of the candidates who are exceptionally qualified. However, no specific period for relaxation has been fixed. 4. As per Government order No.1500-GAD of 2000 dated 21.12.2000, relaxation is permissible in favour of the candidates who are exceptionally qualified. However, no specific period for relaxation has been fixed. The ground based on which relaxation case of the writ petitioner has been rejected is that he is not exceptionally qualified but decision on such premise is not tenable because earlier respondent was selected as against the post of Dental Surgeon in District Kargil, relaxation in upper age bar by 2 years, 4 months and 10 days, for contractual appointment, was allowed. Subsequent thereto, writ petitioner applied as against the similar other post in District Budgam where he also got selected. Once the Government has relaxed the upper age, means the writ petitioner possessed the requisite qualification, otherwise age would not have been relaxed. 5. The advertisement was issued in the year 2008, so in the year 2008 relaxation of age was only for a period of 2 years, 4 months and 10 days. The appellants have reckoned the upper age limit in the year 2012 as 06 years which is not permissible because upper age limit is to be determined with reference to the date of advertisement, as has been done while reckoning the age of the writ petitioner when he got selected in District Kargil. The consideration accorded to the relaxation case of the writ petitioner has not been appropriate, therefore, his relaxation case has to be re-considered in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Dependent thereon, he is required to be considered for appointment on contractual basis on the basis of selection as has been made. 6. The impugned judgment shall stand modified accordingly. 7. LPA disposed of as above along with connected CMP.