JUDGMENT : B.S. Walia, J. The matter pertains to the year 2002 and was taken up for hearing yesterday, but on request of learned counsel for the petitioner, it was kept on board for today. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although she was appointed as Junior Staff Nurse on contract basis on consolidated pay of Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand) per month, yet in response to Advertisement Notice for appointment of Junior Staff Nurse on regular basis, she had already applied and was at Serial No. 1 in waiting list, as per the recommendations of SSB. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand states that contents of paragraph No. 5 of the writ petition reveal that the petitioner was over age by three years and five months, but that Respondent No. 3-Director Health Services, Jammu had recommended the case of the petitioner for relaxation qua age bar. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents further states that the Competent Authority after considering the matter, passed an order dated 16th April, 2002, rejecting the recommendations for relaxation of age bar qua the petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior Staff Nurse on contract basis in District Hospital, Rajouri. On the basis of the same, learned counsel for the respondents states that the recommendations of the Services Selection Board (SSB), placing the petitioner at Serial No. 1 in the waiting list stands rendered meaningless, more so when no challenge has been raised by the petitioner to the order, rejecting the recommendation for relaxation of age qua the petitioner. 5. It is the further the stand of learned counsel for the respondents that after the passing of the order rejecting the recommendation for relaxation of age, the services of the petitioner, who was working as Junior Staff Nurse on contractual/consolidated basis were terminated vide Order No. DHS-J/legal/738-40, dated 05th May, 2003. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents states that in the absence of a challenge having been raised to the termination of service of the petitioner, the writ petition is mis-conceived. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents states that in the absence of a challenge having been raised to the termination of service of the petitioner, the writ petition is mis-conceived. 7. In view of the fact that time had been given to the petitioner for obtaining relaxation in age of appointment from the Competent Authority, but the same was not granted, rather an order, as referred to above was passed, rejecting the recommendation for relaxation in age, as also, in view of the fact that thereafter, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 05th May, 2003 and the said order of termination has not been challenged by the petitioner, the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition is misconceived, merits acceptance. 8. Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the petitioner states that SWP No. 1387/2002 titled as "Parveen Kumari v. H.L. Kadalbajju" was filed, stating therein that on non-joining of one Rama Sharma against the post of Junior Staff Nurse in District Rajouri, the petitioner therein, namely, Parveen Kumari was entitled to be appointed against the resultant vacancy as her name was figuring at Serial No. 2 besides the candidate, who figured at Serial No. 1, namely, Kanta Devi was over age. 9. The above said writ petition was, accordingly, disposed of vide order dated 20th May, 2002. In pursuance to the directions passed in the afore-mentioned writ petition, the said Parveen Kumari was allowed to join service as Junior Staff Nurse in super session of the claim of the petitioner of the instant writ petition on account of her being over aged. The fact remains that even on the date when the petitioner was appointed as Junior Staff Nurse on contractual basis on consolidate pay of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) per month vide (Annexure-A) dated 22nd January, 2001, she was over age by three years and five months as per her own showing in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. 10. Further perusal of the order (Annexure-A) reveals that although the appointment of the petitioner was made by Services Selection Board (SSB) Members, but the same was pursuant to the directions of the Health and Medical Education Minister J&K State, Jammu. 10. Further perusal of the order (Annexure-A) reveals that although the appointment of the petitioner was made by Services Selection Board (SSB) Members, but the same was pursuant to the directions of the Health and Medical Education Minister J&K State, Jammu. The appointment of the petitioner was made at her own risk and responsibility and it was directed that the consolidated pay of the petitioner would be drawn by the Medical Superintendent only on receipt of relaxation in age from the Competent Authority for which the petitioner had given affidavit. 11. In the aforementioned background, the writ petition is without merit more so when the claim of the petitioner for relaxation in age, which was duly recommended by Respondent No. 3 was rejected by the Competent Authority vide order dated 16th April, 2003 and the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 5th May, 2003 and the aforementioned orders were not challenged by the petitioner. 12. In the light of the position as noted above, there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.