Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42174 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8031 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mrs. Sudha Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag -I Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Tauseef Siddiqui,Shiv Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya) Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1 and Mr. R.K. Upadhyay learned counsel for opposite party No.2. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 17th April, 2025 whereby petitioner's application for providing age relaxation in terms of U.P. Public Service Commission (Relaxation of age limit for recruitments) Regulations of 1992 as well as U.P. Women Policy 2006 for the post of Lecturer Sanskrit, Department of Ayus as per advertisement dated 17th October, 2024 has been rejected. Further prayer for reconsideration of her case has also been made. 3. It has been submitted that impugned order has been passed rejecting petitioner's application only on the ground that recruitment process is underway in terms of advertisement due to which such a relaxation can not be granted. It is submitted that the aspects required to be considered have not been taken into account at all and therefore petitioner's application requires to be reconsidered. 4. Learned counsel for opposite parties have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that in terms of Regulations of 1992, it is Governor of the State who has empowered to grant any such relaxation and such power has been exercised keeping in mind that this is not a routine relaxation but an extra ordinary power which has been exercised. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner had submitted an application for such age relaxation in terms of Regulations of 1992 and 2006 vide letter dated 27th November, 2024. However a perusal of the aforesaid letter clearly indicates that there is no specific reason indicated by petitioner for seeking such age relaxation except for an averment that relaxation may be granted because she is now over age. Apart from aforesaid, certain orders passed by this Court have been cited. 6. It is therefore evident that no extraordinary circumstance has been indicated by petitioner in her application for grant of such age relaxation. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the power conferred in terms of Regulations of 1992 confer an extra ordinary power upon the Governor for granting such age relaxation and such a power can not be exercised in ordinary course of business but only for special and extraordinary circumstances which would have been required to be stated specifically in the application submitted by petitioner. Merely stating that the applicant is overage and requires relaxation, would not come within the exercise of extra ordinary powers in terms of Regulations of 1992. 8. Considering the fact that petitioner's application itself was vague and not specific for exercise of such extra ordinary power, this Court does not find any good ground to grant any indulgence. The judgments averted to in the writ petition would be inapplicable in view of the fact that in those cases, the rejection and order had not been challenged as in the present case. 9. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 23.7.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench