JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri L. Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri K. Jagat, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Shri R.S. Reisang, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. This is the second round of litigation and it is unfortunate that the petitioner has been dragged to this court again and again for no fault of her. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition praying for issuing an appropriate writ or direction to the respondents for taking necessary steps for relaxation of the upper age limit in case of the petitioner who belongs to OBC (Meitei Pangal) under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 3. According to the petitioner, she is well qualified after having obtained Degree of Master of Arts in Hindi in the year 1998 and Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Hindi from Manipur University in the year 2010 and in the meantime also, she completed Hindi Shikshan Parangat Examination equivalent to B.Ed. In response to an Advertisement issued on 30-12-2006 by the Manipur Public Service Commission (in short “MPSC”) inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Lecturers of Government Higher Secondary School in the Education School Department, Government of Manipur in respect of various subjects including Hindi, the petitioner applied for it by way of submitting her duly filled in form of application. In acknowledgment of her submission of application, the MPSC issued an Acknowledgement Card having Reference No. 64. However, nothing had been done thereafter towards the process of selection pursuant to the said Advertisement dated 30-12-2006 nor had it been cancelled by the MPSC for the reason best known to them. 3.1 Without cancelling the advertisement dated 30-12-2006, the MPSC, after a long gap of 8 years, issued another advertisement dated 08-11-2014 inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates for appointment to the same posts of Lecturers of Government Higher Secondary Schools in respect of various subjects including Hindi without any reference to the earlier advertisement. By way of abundant caution, the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Hindi for which an Acknowledgement Card being No. 304 was issued by the MPSC. By way of abundant caution, the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Hindi for which an Acknowledgement Card being No. 304 was issued by the MPSC. Since there is no any provision in the said advertisement dated 08-11-2014 for relaxation of upper age for those who had applied under the earlier advertisement dated 30-12-2006 for the same posts under the same Department, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 21-11-2014 praying for consideration of the case of the petitioner for relaxation of her upper age limit. The respondents failed to consider her representation which compelled the petitioner to approach this Court by way of a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 988 of 2014 which was disposed of on 15-12-2014 with the direction that the respondents should examine and consider the representation of the petitioner. Before her representation was considered by the respondents, the petitioner came to know that in continuation of the process of selection, the examination was to be conducted on 22-02-2015 and having no alternative, the petitioner approached this court again by way of the present writ petition. 4. The stand of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 as indicated in their affidavit-in-opposition is that the representation dated 21-11-2014 of the petitioner was disposed of on 09-02-2015 stating therein that the same was examined and considered but could not be entertained, as it was not within the domain of the Director of Educations. The fact that the order dated 09-02-2015 had already been issued disposing of the representation of the petitioner, was not placed before this court and therefore, this court while issuing the notice passed an interim order observing that despite the order dated 15-12-2014 being issued by this court, the respondents had failed to dispose of the said representation and accordingly, the MPSC was directed to allow the petitioner to sit for the examination which was to be held on 22-02-2015. It is further stated therein that the life span of the advertisement dated 30-12-2006 came to an end, since the examination could not be conducted within a reasonable time and the recent advertisement dated 08-11-2014 is a new one under which the petitioner is not eligible to sit or take a chance in the recruitment process. It is further stated therein that the life span of the advertisement dated 30-12-2006 came to an end, since the examination could not be conducted within a reasonable time and the recent advertisement dated 08-11-2014 is a new one under which the petitioner is not eligible to sit or take a chance in the recruitment process. The respondent No. 2 also filed an affidavit-in-opposition, admitting therein the issuance of the advertisement dated 08-11-2014, wherein it is stated that the petitioner’s representation was disposed of on 09-02-2015 and the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination pursuant to the court’s order dated 20-02-2015. The prayer for the relaxation of the upper age so as to enable the petitioner to participate in the recruitment process had already been rejected by the authorities. Refuting the allegations made in the said counter affidavits, the petitioner filed her rejoinder wherein it has been stated that the alleged order dated 09-02-2015, disposing of the representation of the petitioner, is a document doctored and prepared as an afterthought and a copy thereof was not furnished to the petitioner at all. The earlier advertisement dated 30-12-2006 had never been recalled or superseded nor had it been cancelled by the respondents. 5. It has been vehemently submitted by Shri L. Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the inaction on the part of the respondents is highly unfair and unreasonable. Had any examination been conducted pursuant to the advertisement dated 30-12-2006, the petitioner could have got the opportunity to participate in the selection process. But unfortunately, the respondents had miserably failed to go ahead with the selection process without the said advertisement dated 30-12-2006 being cancelled by them and by the time the fresh advertisement dated 08-11-2014 was issued, the petitioner became age barred. Therefore, it has further been submitted that when the fresh advertisement dated 08-11-2014 was issued, the respondents failed to take into account the cases of those candidates who had applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 30-12-2006 or they could have considered sympathetically the case of the petitioner when the representation was submitted by the petitioner for relaxation of her upper age limit and because of their failure to do so, the respondents have completely denied the petitioner of her right to participate in the selection process. In support his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T. Ramakrishna Rao & ors. reported in (1972) 2 SCC 830. He has placed reliance also on the decision rendered by the Rajasthan High Court in Mahaveer Pd. Meena Vs. Union of India reported in 2005 (3) WLC 243. Shri K. Jagat, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that the petitioner has no enforceable right to appointment as the Lecturer in Hindi and moreover, the petitioner is not eligible as per the fresh advertisement dated 08-11-2014 due to over age and her representation dated 21-11-2014, praying of relaxation of her upper age limit, had already been rejected by the State Government. However, he has not cited any decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his contention. 6. The facts of the said case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred to herein above and relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, are not exactly the same as that of the present case. But the circumstances in which the relief has been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are relevant. In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T. Ramakrishna Rao & ors. case (supra), the State Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 08-11-1968 for appointment of District Munsiff and one of the qualifications required was that the candidates should be below the age of 32 years. The examination could not be held on account of a walk out staged by the Examinees. Thereafter, the Commission issued another notice for holding another examination which came to be challenged on the ground that the relevant rule did not provide for written examination. The Hon’ble High Court rejected the contentions as regards the written and oral test but directed the Commission to hold a separate examination for those who had applied in 1968 and another examination for those would apply in respect of the subsequent vacancies. The Hon’ble High Court rejected the contentions as regards the written and oral test but directed the Commission to hold a separate examination for those who had applied in 1968 and another examination for those would apply in respect of the subsequent vacancies. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found the directions given by the Hon’ble High Court being unsustainable and while setting aside the same, held that the only direction which becomes necessary was that if any of the respondents or other candidates who had applied in 1968 had by this time became age barred by reason of the delay in holding the examination, he should not be disqualified from appearing in the examination if he was of the qualified age at the time he had filed his application. Relying upon this decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Rajasthan High Court has delivered its judgment and order in Mahaveer Pd. Meena Vs. Union of India case (supra) wherein the petitioner therein being eligible applied for selection to the post of Diesel Chargeman (Electrical) but the written test thereof was not conducted and the Department re-advertised the posts vide Notification dated 04-03-2003. The petitioner therein, when he submitted application in response to the first notification, was below 45 years but when he submitted application pursuant to the second notification, he was above the minimum age of 45 years. He appeared in the selection test which was later cancelled and the respondents therein issued another notification on 14-08-2003 without referring to the earlier notifications. Although he submitted his application, his name was not included in the list of eligible candidates. Being aggrieved by the non-inclusion of his name, he approached the CAT which dismissed his application. A writ petition came to be filed before the Hon’ble High Court against the judgment and order passed by the CAT. The Hon’ble High Court held inter-alia that the petitioner therein had been deprived of his legitimate right of seeking appointment on the post of Diesel Chargeman for which he was certainly eligible when the first advertisement came into being on 21-01-2002. The vacancy was indeed available at that time. If for some reason, it became necessary to re-advertise the post, the petitioner could not be held ineligible if by that time, he had crossed the minimum age limit. The vacancy was indeed available at that time. If for some reason, it became necessary to re-advertise the post, the petitioner could not be held ineligible if by that time, he had crossed the minimum age limit. The Hon’ble High Court has further observed that while issuing the third notification on 14-08-2003 the respondents made the petitioner ineligible for having crossed the maximum age of 45 years for no fault of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been considered eligible and permitted to take the examination pursuant to notification dated 14-08-2003. 7. The facts which are not in dispute, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 30-12-2006 issued by the MPSC, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Hindi and no examination thereof had been conducted pursuant thereto by the MPSC, although the said advertisement dated 30-12-2006 had never been cancelled nor had it been withdrawn. All the eligible candidates including the petitioner were eagerly waiting for the examination to be conducted by the MPSC. To their shock and surprise, the MPSC after a gap of about eight year, issued a fresh advertisement dated 08-11-2014 without any reference to the advertisement dated 30-12-2006 but by way of abundant caution, she applied for it, although she became age barred. With the apprehension that her application might be rejected on the ground of over-age, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 21-11-2014 praying for relaxation of her upper age limit which was, according to the respondents, rejected on 09-02-2015. But the stand of the petitioner is that it is a document doctored and prepared as an afterthought and even assuming that it was rejected on 09-02-2015, it was not communicated to her nor was a copy thereof furnished to her. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents have not produced any material to show that a copy of the order dated 09-02-2015 had been served upon the petitioner. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has some force for the reason that although it is stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that a copy of the order dated 09-02-2015 was served upon the petitioner, no material to prove it has been placed on record as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has some force for the reason that although it is stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that a copy of the order dated 09-02-2015 was served upon the petitioner, no material to prove it has been placed on record as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Moreover, on perusal of the said order dated 09-02-2015, it is seen that the representation dated 21-11-2014 was examined and considered but it could not be entertained on the ground that it was not within the domain of the Director of Educations. In other words, the alleged consideration is no consideration at all because the Director of Educations, on its own saying, was not competent to consider it. There is no any averment in the affidavit that the representation dated 21-11-2014 was forwarded by the Director of Educations to the competent authority to consider it. The fact that the Government order was issued on 01-07-2016 stating that on re-examination of her representation, the same was rejected by the Secretary, Educations shows that the representation was not considered by the competent authority, as expeditiously as possible as directed by this court, prior to the issuance of the Government order dated 09-02-2015. Therefore, the contention of the State respondents that despite the order dated 09-02-2015 having been issued, the same was not placed before this court by the petitioner, cannot be accepted because without a copy thereof being served upon the petitioner, there is no question of such order being placed by her before this court. The advertisement dated 08-11-2014 was issued without any reference to the earlier advertisement dated 30-12-2006 which had not been cancelled at all and no reason was assigned for having not conducted the examination pursuant to the advertisement dated 30-12-2006. In this regard, the stand taken by the State respondents in their affidavit is that the life span of the advertisement dated 30-12-2006 came to an end, since the examination could not be conducted within a reasonable time. But the State respondents have not mentioned any provision of law nor have they filed any document like a copy of order, office memorandum, rules etc. wherein the life span of such advertisement is prescribed. But the State respondents have not mentioned any provision of law nor have they filed any document like a copy of order, office memorandum, rules etc. wherein the life span of such advertisement is prescribed. Moreover, the State respondents have not stated in their affidavit that the life span of the said advertisement dated 30-12-2006 is specifically indicated therein for the information of the public in general. Thus, this court is of the view that the stand taken by the State respondents is unreasonable. 8. The learned Government Advocate has submitted that the petitioner has no enforceable right to appointment. There is absolutely no doubt about it but it may be noted that the petitioner has never claimed that she has got an enforceable right and that she be given an appointment. The case of the petitioner is that although she was eligible under the advertisement dated 30-12-2006, she became ineligible under the advertisement dated 08-11-2014 for no fault of her and that she be treated as eligible under the advertisement dated 08-11-2014 so that she could appear in the examination which was to be held on 22-02-2015. Since she did not get any information about her representation being considered by the State respondents, on 18-02-2015, she approached this court by way of this present petition. On 20-02-0215, when this petition came up for consideration, this court directed the MPSC to allow her to sit for the examination to be held on 22-02-2015 and that the result thereof be not declared without the leave of the court. Accordingly, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination. The result of the written test was declared on 13-08-2015 and that of the viva-voce on 10-09-2015. Vide order dated 02-12-2015 passed by this court, the MPSC was directed to produce the result of the petitioner under sealed cover and on perusal thereof she was found to have been recommended as successful candidate. In fact, out of four seats reserved for OBC (Meitei Pangal) for the post of Lecturer in Hindi, the names of only three candidates including the petitioner, were recommended for appointment and one seat remained vacant for want of eligible and suitable candidate. In fact, out of four seats reserved for OBC (Meitei Pangal) for the post of Lecturer in Hindi, the names of only three candidates including the petitioner, were recommended for appointment and one seat remained vacant for want of eligible and suitable candidate. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that all the candidates recommended by the MPSC have been given “offer form” but so far as the petitioner is concerned, no “offer form” has been given in view of the pendency of the present petition despite the order dated 15-06-2016 passed by this court to the effect that the pendency of this petition shall not preclude the respondents from issuing appointment order. 9. The judgment and order passed by the Rajasthan High Court in the aforesaid case may not be binding on this court but it may be noted that the same has been passed keeping in mind the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T. Ramakrishna Rao & ors. case (supra). Moreover, since the facts and circumstances of the said case are almost identical to that of the present case, there is no reason as to why this court will take a different and contrary view. The peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case may have to be taken into account while moulding the relief to be granted in the matter. In fact, it is as good as the main prayer having been granted by this court during the pendency of the petition when the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination on prima facie case being shown to this court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is well qualified and eligible for appointment at the time when the advertisement dated 30-12-2006 was issued by the MPSC. No examination was conducted by the MPSC for no fault of the petitioner and had the examination been conducted, she could have got the opportunity to participate in the selection process and the matter could have ended there itself. In any case and with the interference of this court, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination and was found to have been qualified for appointment. In any case and with the interference of this court, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination and was found to have been qualified for appointment. Vacant seat is available and one aspect to be noted is that so far as the State Government is concerned, it will make no difference whether a person called “A” or “B” is appointed as Lecturer in Hindi and the only thing to be seen by the State Government is as to whether the person to be appointed is eligible as per rules and has followed the procedure prescribed for selection. The petitioner has fulfilled all the requirements except in respect of age which is to be condoned in view of the facts and circumstances narrated herein above as well as the said decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Rajasthan High Court and therefore, only the consequential relief is now required to be granted by this court. 10. For the reasons stated herein above and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the instant writ petition is allowed with the direction that the petitioner shall be appointed as the Lecturer of Government Higher Secondary School in Hindi in the Education School Department, Government of Manipur within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order, for which appropriate steps including giving “offer form” be taken at the earliest by the State respondent to complete the formality, subject to the medical fitness as prescribed in law. There shall be no order as to costs.