As per case facts, the Petitioner was appointed as Research Assistant (Group-C) despite being over-aged, leading to her termination. Though an earlier termination was set aside, subsequent disciplinary proceedings resulted ... in her dismissal. She challenged this, arguing the authorities could relax age, her service was contractual before regularization, and other similarly placed persons continued, invoking Article 14. The Respondents countered that her appointment violated Recruitment Rules, the selection committee was disciplined, and age relaxation rules don't apply to contractual employees or illegal appointments. The question arose whether the Petitioner's appointment, made while over-aged and in violation of rules, could be regularized, and if principles of age relaxation or Article 14 could be applied. Finally, the Court ruled that the appointment was irregular and illegal due to age criteria violation and non-adherence to Recruitment Rules. It affirmed that age relaxation rules cited did not apply to her contractual status or to outsiders, and Article 14 cannot validate an illegality. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed.