Judgment Heard Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.P. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for opposite party. 2. In a nutshell, the facts relevant to be recorded for disposal of the instant petition are that the petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as a Computer Operator and Typist in the Criminal Court Campus, Cuttack for more than six years by then, responded to an advertisement issued on 16.01.2001, for filling up the post of Junior Clerks-Copyists in the judgeship of Cuttack-Kendrapara-Jajpur-Jagatsinghpur, by the District Judge, Cuttack, and offered his candidature. The process, however, thereafter was not furthered and it was after eight years there from, that a second advertisement dated 27.11.2009 was issued from the office of the District Judge, Cuttack-Kendrapara-Jajpur-Jagatsinghpur at Cuttack, initiating a fresh process for filling up various posts i.e. (1) Jr. Clerk-cum-Copyist and (2) Jr. Typist. The advertisement, inter alia, mentioned that the applications of candidates received earlier in pursuance of the advertisement published in ‘Daily Samaj’ on 16.01.2001 would not be taken into consideration and such candidates would have to apply afresh, if they fulfilled the conditions mentioned in the fresh advertisement. It mentioned further that there would be age relaxation of five years to the upper age limit of such candidates. The petitioner offered his candidature, pursuant to the advertisement of 2009, in the post of Junior Typist. Though subsequent thereto written examination in connection with the said process was scheduled to be held on 21.02.2010, he was not called to partake in the same. Situated thus, with a sense of deprivation, he had approached this Court seeking its remedial intervention. 3. In response to the averments in the writ petition, the opposite party in their counter pleaded that though the petitioner had applied in response to the advertisement dated 16.01.2001 for the post of ‘Junior Clerk-cum-Copyist’, against the advertisement of 2009 he had offered his candidature for the post of ‘Junior Typist’ and therefore, he was not entitled to the benefit of age relaxation which was confined to the candidates have/had, in the both the processes, applied for the post of ‘Jr. Clerk-cum-Copyist’. According to them, the petitioner, being, admittedly overage on the date of which he applied for the post of ‘Jr. Typist’ against the advertisement of 2009, he was ineligible to participate in the process. 4. Mr. Clerk-cum-Copyist’. According to them, the petitioner, being, admittedly overage on the date of which he applied for the post of ‘Jr. Typist’ against the advertisement of 2009, he was ineligible to participate in the process. 4. Mr. P.K. Rath has argued that as the advertisement of 2009 in clear terms mentioned that candidates who had applied earlier, pursuant to advertisement of 2001, would be entitled to age relaxation of 5 years, the action of the opposite party in holding him (petitioner) to be ineligible by denying the said benefit is wholly illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and is thus liable to be adjudged as such. 5. Per contra, Mr. Patnaik has argued that it is apparent on the face of the record that the relaxation of age on the maximum of upper age limit was confined only to the candidates who had applied in response to the advertisement of 2001 i.e. for the post of ‘Jr. Clerks-cum-Copyists’, and it was not extendable to those who had applied for the post of ‘Jr. Typists’ qua the advertisement of 2009 and thus the impugned is by no means assailable in law and on facts. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, we feel persuaded to sustain the plea raised on behalf of the opposite party. 7. Admittedly, the advertisement dated 16.01.2001 was issued to fill up the post of ‘Junior Clerks-Copyists’ and not that of ‘Junior Typists’. The petitioner had applied to participate in the said process for the post of ‘Junior Clerks-Copyists’. There is no wrangle at the Bar that the petitioner had applied and offered his candidature for the post of ‘Junior Clerks-Copyists’ in response to the advertisement of 2009. In this view of the matter, the relaxation of upper age limit, in our opinion, was neither intended to be extended nor extendable to the candidates who had applied for the post of ‘Junior Typists’ in response to the advertisement of 2009. The candidates who contemplated to be accorded the benefit of relaxation of upper age were clearly those who had applied for the post of ‘Junior Clerks-Copyists’ in the earlier process and also had offered their candidature for the same post in the later exercise initiated by the advertisement dated 27.11.2009. 8. The candidates who contemplated to be accorded the benefit of relaxation of upper age were clearly those who had applied for the post of ‘Junior Clerks-Copyists’ in the earlier process and also had offered their candidature for the same post in the later exercise initiated by the advertisement dated 27.11.2009. 8. In the above view of the matter, the decision of the opposite party denying the benefit of relaxation of age to the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be held to be illegal or arbitrary as alleged. The petition lacks in merit and is thus dismissed.