posts of SET lying vacant are filled expeditiously. He submits that upon the petitioner challenging the said decision of the Tribunal, this Court had, while directing the respondents to reconsider the matter of granting age relaxation, once again observed that there was a crying need to fill up the posts of SET and that, once, all eligible female candidates had been granted age relaxation of 10 years, the petitioner‟s request for grant of age relaxation should be reconsidered, keeping in mind the fact that the first recruitment drive for the said post had been undertaken only in 2013, i.e., four years after the order dated 16.09.2009 passed by this Court directing the respondents to create and fill up the post of SET. He submits that despite such observations and directions by this Court, the respondents once again rejected the petitioner‟s request for grant of age relaxation on 17.09.2014 by holding that grant of age relaxation to male candidates, such as the petitioner, could not be acceded to. Mr.Agarwal submits that on 28.11.2018, during the pendency of these proceedings, this Court had, after perusing the order dated 17.09.2014, once again directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of age relaxation but the respondents have once again, vide the order dated 19.02.2019, rejected the petitioner‟s request by passing a wholly unreasoned order. He submits that a bare perusal of the said order shows that the respondents have not only overlooked the rationale highlighted in the repeated orders passed by this Court, but they have also ignored the relevant considerations and, in fact, have chosen to stick to their stand that no age relaxation would be granted to male candidates.
