JUDGMENT : This application has been filed challenging the order dated 24th March, 2015 whereby a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition on merits. 2. The appellant/petitioner herein was initially engaged as Clerk-cum-Typist in Purnidevi Chowdhury Girls College at Bolpur on contractual basis in the year 2005 and thereafter, the contractual period was extended by the college authority from time to time and the said appellant/petitioner is still working in the said college. 3. It appears from the records that posts of Accountant, Library Clerk and Laboratory Attendant were sanctioned by the Government of West Bengal on February 21, 2014 and approval for filling up the said posts was accorded vide memo dated 2nd January, 2015. The appellant/petitioner herein wants to participate in the selection process initiated for filling up the aforesaid newly sanctioned non-teaching posts and therefore, submitted application. It is not in dispute that the appellant/petitioner herein has already crossed the prescribed age limit for participating in the selection process. 4. Learned counsel representing the appellant/petitioner, however, submits that the said appellant/petitioner was within the prescribed age limit at the time of initial appointment to the non-teaching post of the said college and has been serving in the said post till today. 5. Mr. Bari, learned counsel of the appellant/petitioner submits that considering the long past services rendered by the appellant, prescribed age limit should be waived in the case of the said appellant/petitioner so that the appellant can participate in the selection process initiated for filling up the newly sanctioned non-teaching posts in the concerned college. 6. The learned Single Judge, however, refused to allow the appellant/petitioner to participate in the selection process upon waiving the age bar since the said appellant/petitioner was appointed to a post which was not sanctioned at the relevant time. 7. The learned Single Judge while rejecting the prayer of the appellant/petitioner for waiving the age bar relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshav Narayan Gupta v. Jila Parishad, Shippuri (MP) & Another reported in (1998) 9 SCC 78 . 8. The aforesaid decision was subsequently followed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gobinda Chandra Mondal v. Principal, Rabindra Mahavidyalaya reported in 2013(1) CHN (CAL) 9. 9. Heard the learned counsel of the respondent college authorities as well as the State respondents. 10. 8. The aforesaid decision was subsequently followed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gobinda Chandra Mondal v. Principal, Rabindra Mahavidyalaya reported in 2013(1) CHN (CAL) 9. 9. Heard the learned counsel of the respondent college authorities as well as the State respondents. 10. Going through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Keshav Narayan Gupta (Supra), we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically observed as hereunder: "5. We, therefore, do not see any reason to take a view different from the view taken by the High Court. It is, however, submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that these appellants have worked for 12 years by now and there are no complaints regarding their service. Hence, if any regular appointments are made, the cases of the appellants should also be considered by waiving, if necessary, the age bar. We see some force in this contention. We, accordingly, direct that when regular appointments to the posts at present occupied by the appellants are made, the cases of the appellants will also be considered along with the other applicants by waiving the age bar in the case of the appellants, if necessary." 11. In the aforesaid decision Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to condone the age bar upon considering the long past services of the candidates concerned and specially when no adverse report with regard to the services rendered by the candidates concerned were received by the concerned authorities. 12. In the present case also we find that the appellant/petitioner herein has been serving the college for almost last ten years and no adverse report with regard to the services rendered by the appellant/petitioner was also received by the college authorities. 13. Therefore, following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshav Narayan Gupta (Supra) the appellant/petitioner should be allowed to participate in the selection process of the non-teaching post in question along with other eligible candidates upon condoning the age bar specifically considering the long past services rendered by the appellant/petitioner as non-teaching employee of the concerned college without any complaint from any quarter with regard to the services rendered by the said appellant/petitioner. 14. 14. Accordingly, we direct the respondents herein to allow the appellant/petitioner to participate in the selection process for filling up the newly sanctioned non-teaching posts along with other eligible candidates upon waiving the age bar. 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, we set aside the impugned order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge and dispose of both the application as well as the appeal upon treating the said appeal as on days list. 16. There will be no order as to costs. Let a photostat plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to the learned advocate appearing for the parties on usual undertaking. Appeal allowed.