ORDER : R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. The petitioner, presently serving as personal Assistant (Stenographer Grade-II) in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himatnagar, District-Sabarkantha, has filed this writ-petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayers which read as under: “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction upon the respondent authorities to determine vacancies in the cadre of Civil Judge and to initiate recruitment process for filling up the vacancies as expeditiously as possible; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to consider and implement the Government Notification dated 06.10.2015 by increasing the age limit; (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities not to non-suit the petitioner on the ground of bar of age from participating in the recruitment process/examination for the cadre of Civil Judge as and when the same is initiated; (D) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to determine vacancies in the cadre of Civil Judge and to initiate recruitment process for filling up the vacancies for the cadre of Civil Judge as expeditiously as possible;” 2. The facts in brief which are necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:— 2.1 The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Junior Clerk in Judicial Department and served as such from 2.12.1996 to 2.10.1998 Thereafter, w.e.f 3.10.1998, he served as Personal Assistant, at present, he is serving as Personal Assistant (Stenographer Grade II) in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Himatnagar, District-Sabarkantha. Recruitment to the post of Civil Judge in the Gujarat State Judicial Service is governed by the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005. Rules 7 and 10 of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 (“Rules” for short) prescribe method of appointment and mode of recruitment. Relevant portions of Rules 7 and 10 of the Rules read as under: “7. Recruitment to the post of Civil Judge in the Gujarat State Judicial Service is governed by the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005. Rules 7 and 10 of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 (“Rules” for short) prescribe method of appointment and mode of recruitment. Relevant portions of Rules 7 and 10 of the Rules read as under: “7. Civil Judges: (1) Recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judges shall be made on the basis of aggregate marks obtained in a competitive examination conducted by the High Court. (2) In order to be eligible for selection by direct recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judges, the candidate (a) must possess a degree in law from the University established by law in India; (b) must be practicing as an Advocate in Courts of Civil and/or Criminal jurisdiction on the last date fixed for receipt of applications; or must have worked in Courts or other allied departments for at least five years; and (c) must have attained the age of thirty five years and must not have completed as on the last date fixed for receipt of applications thirty eight years of age in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Provided that if the High Court has made any order under Article 16(4) or 16(4-A) of the Constitution providing reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes the recruitment shall be subject to such order. xxx xxx xxx” “10. Recruitment:— (1) To fill a vacancy required to be filled by promotion the recruiting authority shall take all necessary steps well in advance so as to finalize the list of persons considered eligible for promotion at least 10-15 days before the occurrence of the vacancy (2) (i) Whenever three or more vacancies required to be filled by direct recruitment occur in a cadre in the service or once in two years, whichever is earlier, the recruiting authority shall, invite by advertisement in the Official Gazette and in at least two newspapers, applications in such form as it may determine from intending candidates, who possess the prescribed qualifications. The advertisement shall indicate the number of vacancies notified for recruitment and the number of vacancies, if any, reserved for the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes and shall contain all necessary information relating to the recruitment. The advertisement shall indicate the number of vacancies notified for recruitment and the number of vacancies, if any, reserved for the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes and shall contain all necessary information relating to the recruitment. It shall also indicate that an additional list of selected candidates would be prepared as per clause (iv). xxx xxx xxx” 2.2 In the year 2012, by issuing advertisement dated 27th April 2012, applications were invited from eligible candidates to fill up the posts of Civil Judges, i.e. 33 regular vacancies in the cadre and 287 ad-hoc vacancies. As per the said Notification, maximum age limit prescribed was 35 years for general category candidates and 5 years' relaxation had been granted i.e. up to 40 years to the eligible employees working in the courts or allied departments. It is the say of the petitioner that against the said advertisement only 21 candidates against regular vacancies and 148 candidates against ad-hoc vacancies were declared successful. It is further say of the petitioner that from the year 2013 onwards no advertisement was issued to fill up the vacancies in spite of vacant posts in the cadre of Civil Judges and in the meantime, the petitioner crossed the age of 40 years. Precisely it is pleaded in the petition that in spite of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P Public Service Commission, to determine vacancies in regular posts in a year and to issue notification to fill up such vacancies, in spite of the same, no steps have been taken since last four years, as such, the petitioner has missed opportunity to compete for recruitment of such posts which were vacant. It is also the case of the petitioner that General Administration Department of the Government has issued Notification on 6th October 2015, inter alia, increasing the upper age limit by 5 years or by relaxing 5 years to the candidates who have become over-aged. 3. Affidavit in reply and further affidavit in reply are filed on behalf of the 1st respondent-High Court of Gujarat. 3. Affidavit in reply and further affidavit in reply are filed on behalf of the 1st respondent-High Court of Gujarat. When the matter came up for admission, pursuant to orders passed by this Court, a set of papers were served on the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent-High Court of Gujarat and on receipt of the same, these affidavit in reply and further affidavit in reply are filed. 4. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner in the petition, it is stated that it is the prerogative of the appointing authority whether to fill up the post or not and there are numerous administrative reasons because of which recruitment could not be made for some years. It is further stated that the 1st respondent has already initiated process for recruitment of 12 regular and 100 Ad-hoc posts of Civil Judges for which advertisement is already issued and a copy of which is placed on record. While referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-Op. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh reported in (1977) 4 SCC 145 , it is pleaded that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is failure on the part of that officer to discharge statutory obligation. 5. So far as the prayer made in prayer clause (B) is concerned, it is pleaded that the petitioner is not entitled to any such relief as much as resolutions issued by the State Government do not apply to the establishment of the High Court of Gujarat unless and until the High Court on its administrative side takes a conscious decision to adopt the same. It is stated that High Court on administrative side has not taken any decision to adopt the Government Resolution dated 6th October 2015 extending the upper age limit in the recruitment procedure for the post of Judicial Officers. Further, referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Pushpa Rani reported in (2008) 9 SCC 242 , it is pleaded that the petitioner is not entitled for the prayer as sought in clause (B) of the petition. 6. Further, referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Pushpa Rani reported in (2008) 9 SCC 242 , it is pleaded that the petitioner is not entitled for the prayer as sought in clause (B) of the petition. 6. With reference to the allegations made in the petition for grant of relief in clause-(C), it is stated that the purpose of any advertisement to fill up vacancies is to get the best talent from amongst the candidates who fall within the zone of consideration and the recruiting agency is empowered to prescribe the age limit for the same. It is further stated that simply because the post could not be filled up for some time would not by itself entitle the petitioner to be eligible to apply for the same on the ground that, had there been an advertisement before few years or months or even days, he could have fallen within the zone of consideration. It is stated that if such plea is to be accepted, it would not be possible to draw a line. Thus, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled even for the relief made in para (C) of the prayer clause. 7. In the further affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, with regard to the Government Resolution dated 5th October 2015, it was specifically addressed by the 1st respondent-High Court in its meeting held on 27th December 2016 and conscious decision has been taken that the said Government Resolution be not made applicable to the establishment of the High Court of Gujarat. It is further stated that the age limit prescribed in the Rules as reflected in the advertisement is 35 years for general category candidates and 38 years for reserved category candidates, and further relaxation of 5 years up to 40 years is provided in the advertisement for the eligible employees working in the courts or other allied departments. In that view of the matter, decision is taken by the 1strespondent-High Court of Gujarat not to adopt the Government Resolution dated 6th October 2015. In that view of the matter, decision is taken by the 1strespondent-High Court of Gujarat not to adopt the Government Resolution dated 6th October 2015. It is further stated in the further affidavit that perusal of the Resolution passed by the government would go to show that the resolution provides for relaxation of 5 years to the posts where age limit of 30 years is prescribed which would be relaxed up to 35 years. As much as the recruitment rules prescribe upper age limit to be 35 years for general category, 38 years for reserved category and 40 years for employees working in the courts and other allied departments, decision was taken not to adopt the Resolution of the government. In paragraph-4 of the further affidavit, it is categorically pleaded that when regular posts fell vacant, the same were filled up from the ad-hoc posts available under “Swarnim-Gujarat” scheme. In the year 2015 in all 153 candidates and in the year 2016, 24 candidates from ad-hoc Civil Judges came to be appointed against regular vacancies. Further, in the year 2016, select list of 72 candidates from ad-hoc Civil Judge to be appointed against regular vacancies is sent to the State Government for issuance of appointment orders which is being awaited. Thus, as and when regular posts of Civil Judge fell vacant, the same are filled up from the ad-hoc judges appointed under the “Swarnim-Gujarat” scheme. Simultaneously, creation of infrastructure was also a factor that was considered by the High Court on its administrative side. With regard to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P Public Service Commission, it is stated that progress report with regard to appointment of Judges in the subordinate courts is regularly placed on record before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 8. Affidavit in rejoinder is filed on behalf of the petitioner. In the rejoinder, mainly reiterating the pleadings as stated in the petition, it is further stated that in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the 1strespondent, no reasons have been stated for not adopting the notification/Government Resolution dated 6th October 2015. 8. Affidavit in rejoinder is filed on behalf of the petitioner. In the rejoinder, mainly reiterating the pleadings as stated in the petition, it is further stated that in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the 1strespondent, no reasons have been stated for not adopting the notification/Government Resolution dated 6th October 2015. It is further stated that as much as the appointing authority is the government even with regard to the posts of Civil Judges, the Government Resolution dated 6th October 2015 is to be applied for the purpose of age relaxation by the 1st respondent. 9. Heard Shri R.S Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Shri D.A Sankhesara, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri G.M Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 10. Shri R.S Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate pointedly referred to Rule 10(2) of the Rules and submitted that as much as during the years 2013 and 2014 there were more than three or more vacancies which were to be filled up by way of direct recruitment, it was necessary for the recruiting authority to issue notification/advertisement to fill up such vacant posts; in spite of the same, the 1st respondent has not issued any notification, as such, the petitioner missed the opportunity to compete in the recruitment to such vacancies. It is submitted that had advertisement been issued during the relevant years where three or more vacancies were available, which were required to be filled up by way of direct recruitment, the petitioner would have been within the maximum age limit of 40 years. Learned counsel referred to the information furnished by the Public Information Officer of the 1st respondent on 27.6.2013 and 29.11.2014, to support his argument that in spite of availability of vacancies, no steps were taken for initiating the recruitment process. Learned counsel, in support of his argument that in such event as referred above, the petitioner is entitled to relaxation of age, has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of Jharkhand High Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Sahay v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2008 (2) AIR Jhar R. 967. Learned counsel, in support of his argument that in such event as referred above, the petitioner is entitled to relaxation of age, has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of Jharkhand High Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Sahay v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2008 (2) AIR Jhar R. 967. Further reliance is also placed on another Division Bench judgment of Jharkhand High Court rendered in W.P (S) No. 7526 of 2013 with I.A No. 173 of 2014 in the case of Bhola Nath Rajak v. State of Jharkhand and it is submitted that in view of the aforesaid two judgments in the identical circumstances, the Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court has altered the cut-off date by relaxing the age taking note of the fact that recruitment process was not initiated for some years. Further reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 12616 of 2011, dated 8.9.2011 in support of his argument that there was no reason or justification for not filling up the vacancies in the earlier years in spite of availability of vacancies. 11. On the other hand, it is submitted by Shri Gautam Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent that recruitment to the post of Civil Judge is governed by the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 framed in exercise of powers under Article 309 read with Article 234 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that as per the Rules, upper age limit for general category candidates is 35 years and for reserved category candidates such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes etc. it is 38 years. It is submitted that though there is no relaxation of age for judicial employees in the Rules pursuant to decision taken by the 1st respondent on administrative side, relaxation of 5 years is given and the upper age limit of 40 years was fixed in the advertisement for candidates who are serving in the judicial department and allied departments. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any age relaxation. It is further submitted that merely because vacancies are not notified is no ground for seeking relaxation in age. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any age relaxation. It is further submitted that merely because vacancies are not notified is no ground for seeking relaxation in age. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that in the absence of any provision for relaxation in the Rules, the petitioner cannot seek any relaxation. In support of his contention, the learned counsel also placed reliance upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 12616 of 2011 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 614 . 12. So far as the grant of relief sought for in Clause (A) of the prayer clause, it is submitted by learned counsel Shri Sanjanwala that in view of the notification issued by the respondent to fill up the vacancies, the relief sought for in Clause (A) has become infructuous. 13. So far as clause (B) of prayer clause is concerned, the petitioner is seeking implementation of the Government Resolution dated 6th October 2015 by increasing the age limit by 5 years. It is true that by the Government Resolution dated 6th October 2015 decision is taken to increase the age limit by 5 years for recruitment to be made to fill up the vacancies in various departments, but as the recruitment procedure to fill up the posts of Civil Judge is governed by the Rules under Articles 309 read with Article 234 of the Constitution of India which prescribe the method and manner for recruitment procedure for the post of Civil Judges, such resolution cannot be applied automatically. The Rules framed referred to above itself prescribe the age restriction of 35 years on the last day fixed for receipt of applications for general category candidates and 38 years in case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Unless the Government Resolution is adopted on administrative side by the 1st respondent and the Rules are amended, the petitioner has no legal right to claim that such Government Resolution is to be applied automatically. Unless the Government Resolution is adopted on administrative side by the 1st respondent and the Rules are amended, the petitioner has no legal right to claim that such Government Resolution is to be applied automatically. It is also to be noticed at this stage that though age limit of 35 years for general category candidates and 38 years in case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is prescribed in the Rules, it appears that pursuant to the decision taken on administrative side by the 1st respondent, relaxation is already granted to extend 5 years in age limit for the candidates who are serving in the judicial and allied departments. In any event, having regard to the recitals in the Government Resolution dated 6th October 2015, it cannot be applied to the post of Civil Judge as much as 35 years is already prescribed for general category candidates with 5 years' relaxation to the candidates serving in judicial and allied departments. When decision is taken on administrative by the 1st respondent for not adopting such Government Resolution for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Civil Judge, the petitioner cannot thrust upon such resolution for grant of relaxation. 14. Learned Senior Advocate Shri R.S Sanjanwala has pointedly focused on Rule 10(2)(i) of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 which reads as under:— Recruitment:— (1) To fill a vacancy required to be filled by promotion the recruiting authority shall take all necessary steps well in advance so as to finalize the list of persons considered eligible for promotion at least 10-15 days before the occurrence of the vacancy. (2) (i) Whenever three or more vacancies required to be filled by direct recruitment occur in a cadre in the service or once in two years, whichever is earlier, the recruiting authority shall, invite by advertisement in the Official Gazette and in at least two newspapers, applications in such form as it may determine from intending candidates, who possess the prescribed qualifications. The advertisement shall indicate the number of vacancies notified for recruitment and the number of vacancies, if any, reserved for the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes and shall contain all necessary information relating to the recruitment. It shall also indicate that an additional list of selected candidates would be prepared as per clause (iv). xxx xxx xxx” 15. It shall also indicate that an additional list of selected candidates would be prepared as per clause (iv). xxx xxx xxx” 15. Reliance is also placed on the material placed on record which is furnished to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act on 27.6.2013 and 29.11.2014 In the information furnished on 27.6.2013, it is stated that there were 7 vacant posts of Civil Judges with regard to regular cadre and 105 vacant posts of ad-hoc Civil Judges. Similarly, in the information provided on 29.11.2014, it is stated that there are 58 vacant posts in the cadre of Civil Judge (J.D) (Regular) and 108 posts in the cadre of Civil Judge (J.D) (Ad-hoc). From the perusal of the affidavit in reply as well as additional affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is clear that it is the specific say of the 1st respondent that whenever vacancies arise in regular cadre, candidates who are selected in ad-hoc basis are considered for regularization. At this stage, it is relevant to note that so far as the posts of Civil Judges are concerned, apart from the regular cadre, there are posts sanctioned by the government on ad-hoc basis for Civil Judges. Such sanction was given by the government during the period of Swarnim-Gujarat celebration (Celebrated year on completion of 50 years of the formation of the Gujarat State). It is true that even during the years 2013 and 2014 there were vacant posts of Civil Judges shown in the regular cadre, but the same is to be considered with reference to the plea of the 1st respondent that such posts were filled up by regularizing the candidates who were appointed in ad-hoc posts of Civil Judge. As much as the same procedure is followed for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge, that is, the cadre post and ad-hoc Civil Judge post, as and when vacancies are to be filled up in the cadre post of Civil Judge, they are filled up by considering posts of ad-hoc Civil Judge. In that view of the matter, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that as the 1st respondent has not issued advertisement for recruitment to the vacant posts of Civil Judge during the years 2013 onwards, the petitioner is entitled for age relaxation. 16. In that view of the matter, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that as the 1st respondent has not issued advertisement for recruitment to the vacant posts of Civil Judge during the years 2013 onwards, the petitioner is entitled for age relaxation. 16. In the case of Sanjeev Kumar Sahay v. State of Jharkhand, when examination was not conducted for about 7 years for recruitment to the posts of Civil Judge and when it was stated by the learned Advocate General appearing for the State that there was inordinate delay in framing the rules, the Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court ordered for altering the cut-off date. Even in the case of Bhola Nath Rajak, Division Bench judgment of the Jharkhand High Court, while referring to the earlier Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Sahay has ordered to modify the cut-off date by fixing the maximum age of 35 years from 31st January 2008 to 31st January 2003. Both the above judgments cannot be applied to the facts of the present case mainly for the reasons that as much as 5 years' age relaxation is already given to the petitioner and similarly situated persons serving in judicial and allied departments. In any event, having regard to the fact that the candidates who are selected on ad-hoc post are considered for regularization in the cadre post as and when vacancies arise in the cadre post, it cannot be said that there were no reasons which existed for not issuing advertisement to fill up the post in the previous years. 17. The Division Bench of this court in the judgment in Special Civil Application No. 12616 of 2011 dated 8.9.2011, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Ami Lal Bhat (supra) has rejected the similar contention raised by the petitioner in the said petition. Further having regard to the fact that there were vacancies in the ad-hoc posts of Civil Judge which were filled up and further as and when vacancies arose in the cadre post of Civil Judge, ad-hoc appointees were regularized in the cadre post, it cannot be said that there was no reason for not issuing advertisement to fill up the vacancies for previous years. Further, it is apt to refer to the relevant portion in para-11 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Ami Lal Bhat (supra) which reads as under: “11. In our view this kind of an interpretation cannot be given to a rule for relaxation of age. The power of relaxation is required to be exercised in public interest in a given case; as for example, if other suitable candidates are not available for the post, and the only candidate who is suitable has crossed the maximum age-limit; or to mitigate hardship in a given case. Such a relaxation in special circumstances of a given case is to be exercised by the administration after referring that case to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. There cannot be any wholesale relaxation because the advertisement is delayed or because the vacancy occurred earlier especially when there is no allegation of any mala fides in connection with any delay in issuing an advertisement. This kind of power of wholesale relaxation would make for total uncertainty in determining the maximum age of a candidate. It might be unfair to a large number of candidates who might be similarly situated, but who may not apply, thinking that they are age-barred. We fail to see how the power of relaxation can be exercised in the manner contended.” 18. Having regard to the aforesaid reasons and further having regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Ami Lal Bhat (supra), we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The petition is devoid of merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. 19. Since the main petition is dismissed, Civil Application No. 12423 of 2016 for stay of the recruitment process and Civil Application No. 573 of 2017 seeking impleadment of the applicant of the said application in the main petition as petitioner no. 2 do not survive and the same are disposed of.