ORDER : The advertisement issued by the fourth respondent in proceedings dated 22.4.2017 in respect of the recruitment to the post of Dialysis Operator on contract basis in Indira Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that she is fully qualified for appointment to the post of Dialysis Operator in the fourth respondent-Institute. However, her application was rejected on the ground that the writ petitioner has crossed the upper age limit of 30 years. At the time of submission of the application, the writ petitioner was over-aged by 3 years and 12 days and therefore, the application submitted by the writ petitioner was rejected. 3. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, made a submission that the Government of India which granted age relaxation in respect of sports persons. Thus, the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India in proceedings dated 12.11.1987 is to be implemented in respect of fourth respondent also. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry), appearing on behalf of the respondents, opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, by stating that the said Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Government of India, P.G. & Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) dated 12.11.1987 is not applicable in respect of the fourth respondent, which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and as far as the fourth respondent is concerned, they are following their own bye-laws and the regulations issued by the Government of Puducherry. Accordingly, there is no age relaxation for the sports persons granted by the fourth respondent and in the notification also, there is no such indication. 5. This Court is of an opinion that the advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of Dialysis Operator on contract basis. The recruitment itself is for contractual appointment and not for regular appointment. This apart, the upper age limit fixed as per the notification is 30 years. Admittedly, the writ petitioner crossed the prescribed age limit of 30 years. Therefore, she is not eligible to participate in the process of selection. 6. The notification is silent in respect of grant of age relaxation for the sports persons. This apart, the upper age limit fixed as per the notification is 30 years. Admittedly, the writ petitioner crossed the prescribed age limit of 30 years. Therefore, she is not eligible to participate in the process of selection. 6. The notification is silent in respect of grant of age relaxation for the sports persons. In the absence of any specific relaxation granted in the recruitment notification, a candidate cannot file a writ petition and seek relaxation of age limit for participating in the process selection. This apart, the fourth respondent is not obligated to grant any such age relaxation in respect of sports persons. The Office Memorandum dated 12.11.1987, cannot be directly applied in respect of the fourth respondent, in the absence of any specific resolution to that effect by the fourth respondent-Institute. Even otherwise also, appointment is only for contract basis and for that the age relaxation need not be granted and if at all such relaxation is to be granted, it is for the authorities competent to take administrative decision in this regard. However, the Courts cannot direct the authorities to grant age relaxation in respect of recruitments to be made for contract appointments. 7. In the event of granting any such relief of age relaxation, then all such similarly placed persons will come and claim the similar relaxation and in such an event, the very sanctity of the recruitment conditions imposed in the advertisement will be defeated. The Courts cannot dilute the qualification and the age limit, prescribed in the recruitment notification by the competent authorities. The rule is to be followed in all circumstances. Relaxation is only an exception and can never be construed as a rule. Such being the principles to be followed, the writ petitioner cannot claim age relaxation in respect of recruitment notification issued by the fourth respondent in proceedings dated 22.4.2017. 8. Thus, the writ petitioner has not made out any valid ground for the purpose of interference. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.