JUDGMENT : Rajesh Shankar, J. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of ‘Pharmacist’ at Rajendra Institute Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi pursuant to Advertisement No. 955(A) dated 08.03.2019 after cancelling the appointment of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 who have been selected on the said post vide memo no. 5140 dated 04.10.2019 issued under the signature of the Director, RIMS, Ranchi (the respondent no. 3). Further prayer has been made for directing the concerned respondents to provide benefit of age relaxation to the petitioner since 2009 when he was appointed as ‘Pharmacist’ at Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ART) Centre, RIMS, Ranchi, in terms with clause-9 of the aforesaid advertisement according to which the age relaxation was to be given for one year for each completed year. 2. The crux of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner on was appointed and posted as ‘Pharmacist’ at ART Centre, RIMS, Ranchi vide letter no. 258/JSACS/09 dated 09.03.2009 issued by the Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare-cum-Project Director, Jharkhand State AIDS Control Society and was directed to report to the Director, RIMS, Ranchi by 13.03.2009. Pursuant to the said letter, the petitioner started working with full sincerity and his salary/remuneration was directly paid by the RIMS administration. Subsequently, the RIMS, Ranchi, vide Advertisement No. 955(A) dated 08.03.2019, invited applications with complete Bio-data for filling up Class-III posts of technical & non-technical categories. The petitioner submitted his application for appointment on the post of ‘Pharmacist’ under ‘unreserved’ category. The said post was to be filled up against two seats, out of which one was for ‘unreserved’ category and another was for ‘scheduled tribe’ category. 3. It is further submitted that though the petitioner possessed all required educational qualification as well as experience and also passed the Technical Skill Test, yet his name did not find place in the final merit list issued by the respondent no. 3 vide memo no. 5140 dated 04.10.2019. The petitioner represented the concerned respondent against his non-selection as well as selection of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 on the post of ‘Pharmacist’ pursuant to the advertisement in question, however the same remained unresponded. 4. 3 vide memo no. 5140 dated 04.10.2019. The petitioner represented the concerned respondent against his non-selection as well as selection of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 on the post of ‘Pharmacist’ pursuant to the advertisement in question, however the same remained unresponded. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that though the petitioner was 38 years of age on the date of advertisement, however since he had completed 10 years of service under RIMS and his remuneration was paid directly by RIMS, he was entitled for 10 years of age relaxation in terms with para-9 of “Instruction for the candidates” as contained in the advertisement in question. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 refers to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the said respondents and submits that pursuant to Advertisement No. 955(A) dated 08.03.2019, the petitioner applied for the post of ‘Pharmacist’ under ‘unreserved’ category. He was not found eligible to be considered for the said post as his date of birth was 15.08.1980 and his age was more than 35 years on the relevant date i.e., 31.12.2018. In fact, his age on the said date was more than 38 years and therefore being overage, he was not found eligible for appointment on the said post under ‘unreserved’ category. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed and posted as ‘Pharmacist’ at ART, Centre, RIMS, Ranchi by the Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare-cum-Project Director, Jharkhand State AIDS Control Society vide letter no. 258/JSACS/09 dated 09.03.2009. Moreover, his remuneration was never paid directly by RIMS and as such he was not entitled for any age relaxation in terms with the advertisement in question. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. The thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an employee of RIMS, Ranchi and his remuneration is also being directly paid by RIMS Administration. Therefore, he deserves the benefit of age relaxation in terms with Advertisement No. 955(A) dated 08.03.2019. 9. 8. The thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an employee of RIMS, Ranchi and his remuneration is also being directly paid by RIMS Administration. Therefore, he deserves the benefit of age relaxation in terms with Advertisement No. 955(A) dated 08.03.2019. 9. To appreciate the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to mention para-9 of “Instruction for the candidates” as contained in the Advertisement No. 955(A) dated 08.03.2019 which reads as under : “9. The candidates who are employed at RIMS and whose remunerations are paid directly by the RIMS administration will have the benefit of age relaxation for one year for each completed year.” 10. As per the aforesaid condition, there were two requirements for availing the age relaxation. The first condition was that the candidate should have been employed at RIMS and the second condition was that his remunerations were paid directly by the RIMS administration. 11. On perusal of letter no. 258/JSACS/09 whereby the petitioner was appointed on the post of ‘Pharmacist’ at ART Centre, RIMS, Ranchi, it would be evident that the said letter was issued by the Project Director, Jharkhand State AIDS Control Society who also happened to be the Secretary of Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand. 12. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner was employed at RIMS, Ranchi, the next question arises as to whether he was paid remuneration directly by the RIMS administration. 13. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that he was paid remuneration directly by RIMS, Ranchi, however he has failed to bring any such document on record in support of the said averment. On the contrary, it has been specifically stated in paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 that the petitioner was not paid the remuneration directly by RIMS. 14. I find substance in the said statement made in the counter affidavit as the petitioner’s letter of appointment dated 09.03.2009 itself suggests that he was appointed by the Jharkhand State AIDS Control Society and not by RIMS. Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner did not conform to the requirement of paragraph-9 of the “Instruction for the candidates” as contained in the Advertisement No. 955(A) dated 08.03.2019. 15. Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner did not conform to the requirement of paragraph-9 of the “Instruction for the candidates” as contained in the Advertisement No. 955(A) dated 08.03.2019. 15. So far as the petitioner’s challenge with respect to appointment of respondent nos. 4 and 5 is concerned, he has also failed to substantiate the said challenge. 16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner does not deserve any relief as prayed in the present writ petition and the same being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.