JUDGMENT : S.R. SEN, J. 1. Heard Mr. J.M. Thangkhiew, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Paul, learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The brief fact of the petitioner's case in a nutshell is that: "The Petitioner is a Bachelor of Science in the field of Medical Imaging Technology from Manipal Academy of Higher Education in the year 2006. After successfully completing his studies he had pursued his Internship in the year 2007 at Kasturba Hospital, Manipal and after successfully completing the same he started working in Kasturba Hospital, Manipal from the 3rd November 2008 to 3rd November 2009. In the year 2009, the Petitioner was offered a job in Bethany hospital as a CT Scan and MRI Technologist, Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging at Bethany Hospital and he joined service in the said hospital from the 19th November 2009 and continued to work in the said hospital till the year 2013. After leaving from Bethany Hospital the Petitioner started working as a Radiographer in the Radiology Department at Civil Hospital Shillong from the 15th May 2013 and is still continuing in the same post till date. On the 22nd April, 2016 an advertisement for the post of Radiographer was floated vide No. NEIGR E.III/15/2014/Pt. I dated 22nd April, 2016 by the North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institute of Health and Medical Sciences, Shillong. The said advertisement was then amended and changed vide a Corrigendum bearing No. NEIGR-E.III/15/2014/Pt.I dated 6.06.2016 issued by the Deputy Director (Admn.) clarifying that the posts available for the post of Radiographer is Five and not Six as published earlier. The Petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that his name having been declared to be overaged as was given through the Notice bearing No. NEIGR/E.III/10/2016 Dated 4th October, 2016, the Petitioner's name was recorded in Serial No. 12 as was given in ANNEXURE-IV of the List of ineligible candidates for the post of Radiographer against Advertisement No. NEIGR E.III/15/2014/Pt. dated the 22nd April, 2016. The Petitioner was not given any relaxation of age limit in spite of the fact that he was working in a Government hospital at the time that he had applied for the post. In the Advertisement No. E.III/15/2014/Pt. dated the 22nd April, 2016. The Petitioner was not given any relaxation of age limit in spite of the fact that he was working in a Government hospital at the time that he had applied for the post. In the Advertisement No. E.III/15/2014/Pt. I dated 22nd April, 2016 it was already given that an upper age limit is relaxable for Government servants up to 5 years in accordance with the instructions or orders issued by the Government of India. The Petitioner thereafter filed his representation on the 13th of October 2016 praying for a review on the rejection of his application. Till date however, the said representation has failed to elicit any form of response or consideration from the Respondent authorities even after a lapse of one months' time. Aggrieved by the said rejection of his application and the non consideration of his representation dated 13th October, 2016 and bereft of any alternate remedy, the Petitioner is before your Lordships by way of this instant petition. Hence, this instant Writ Petition". 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's age at present is 32 years and he had applied for the post of Radiographer, but his application was rejected on the ground that he was overaged by passing the terms and conditions of the advertisement which is at Annexure-8 Page 21 of the writ petition and prayed that necessary directions may be issued. 4. On the other hand, Mr. K. Paul, learned Standing counsel for the respondents considered the submission of the petitioner's counsel. 5. On perusal of the Annexure-8 Page 21 of the writ petition under the heading of "General Information" it is clearly understood that the upper age limit for Government Servants as well as the upper age limit for SC/ST/OBC/Ex-serviceman/Handicapped/disabled candidates is relaxable up to 5 years. If it is so, I do not find any bar not to allow the petitioner to sit for the examination as he is a Government Servant and working at present at Civil Hospital, Shillong, besides that, he falls within the ST category. I also could not understand for what reason his application was rejected. As per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, his age can be relaxed for another 5 years taking into consideration that he is a Government Servant and falls within the ST category. I also could not understand for what reason his application was rejected. As per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, his age can be relaxed for another 5 years taking into consideration that he is a Government Servant and falls within the ST category. Therefore, the respondent is directed to allow the petitioner to sit for the examination without making any further hassle. 6. With this observation and direction the petition is allowed and stands disposed of.