M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the appointment letter dated october 7, 1991, appointing respondent No. 4 as Asstt. Engineer (Civil) Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Cantonment Board, Meerut. We have heard Shri ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri J. N Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent and have perused the record. ( 2 ) THE dispute relates to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in. the Cantonment Board, meerut. This post fell vacant and the Cantonment Board called for the names of eligible persons from the Employment Exchange which was sent by the Employment Exchange vide letter dated july 16, 1991. A true copy of the letter of the Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board, meerut to the Employment Exchange dated July 9, 1991 is Annexure-1 to the writ] petition. The petitioners name was also sent by the Employment Exchange for the said post and an interview was held on August 26, 1991 for the said post. The petitioner has alleged that the Cantonment board has illegally selected respondent No. 4 K. A. Gupta who was at the time Overseer in the cantonment Board. The petitioner has firstly alleged that Shri K. A. Gupta was not qualified for the post as he did not hold degree of B. E. (Civil) and only held a diploma. The second ground for challenge of the selection of the respondent No. 4 was that in the letter of the Executive Officer of the Board dated July 9, 1991 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) it was mentioned that the age limit was between 18 to 25 years whereas Shri Gupta was much more than 25 years old at the relevant time. ( 3 ) IN the counter affidavit filed in this petition by Shri Gupta dated January 19, 1992 he has; disclosed his age as 37 years. It means that he was about 36 years of age at the relevant time and hence above the age limit. The third ground of challenge to the appointment of respondent No. 4 is that the said post was to be filled in by direct recruitment, while in fact it has been filled in by promotion of Shri Gupta. It means that he was about 36 years of age at the relevant time and hence above the age limit. The third ground of challenge to the appointment of respondent No. 4 is that the said post was to be filled in by direct recruitment, while in fact it has been filled in by promotion of Shri Gupta. ( 4 ) COUNTER affidavits have been filed by Cantonment Board as well as by Shri Gupta ( 5 ) AS regards the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner it has been pointed out in paragraph 2 (1) of the counter affidavit of the Cantonment Board that earlier the qualification for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) was a degree in Civil Engineering but subsequently it was amended and a departmental candidate possessing either a degree in Civil Engineering or three years diploma in Civil Engineering with seven years experience was also made eligible vide Annexure-4 to the said counter affidavit. Admittedly, the respondent No. 4 has got three years diploma in Civil Engineering and has seven years experience and hence this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. ( 6 ) AS regards the second submission that the respondent No. 4 was over aged learned counsel for the respondent has invited our attention to paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit of Board in which reference has been made to some decision of the Ministry of Defence dated May 20, 1988. Unfortunately the said order dated May 20, 1988 has not been annexed along with the counter affidavit but a perusal of paragraph 7 shows that the said decision has been applied to the employees of the defence department The post in question is not a post in the defence department but in the Cantonment Board which is a statutory body established under the cantonment Act and is a distinct legal entity separate from the defence department. Hence the said decision of the Ministry of Defence dated March 20, 1988 cannot be of any assistance to the respondent No. 4, In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit of respondent No. 4 it is alleged that the respondent No. 4 was entitled for exemption from the age limit in view of the office memo dated may 20, 1989 circulated vide Govt. of India letter dated March 1, 1990. of India letter dated March 1, 1990. In fact, the same letter of Government of India dated March 1, 1990 and the office memo dated May 20, 1989 (which has perhaps wrongly been mentioned as May 20, 1985 in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit of the Board) has also been referred to in para 7 of the Boards counter affidavit. It is unfortunate that neither the Cantonment Board nor the respondent No. 4 have annexed these letters or office memo along with the counter affidavit. But it is evident that para 7 of the counter affidavit of shri K. A. Gupta makes the same averments which have been made in para 7 of the counter affidavit of the Board. We have already observed above that the said decision of Ministry of defence applied only to the employees of the defence department and there is nothing to show that it applies to the employees of the Cantonment Board. Hence the respondent No. 4 was not entitled to the age relaxation. It has also not been made clear by the respondents whether the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) was of Group C or D and hence for this reason also his submission cannot be accepted because the aforesaid decision gave benefit of age relaxation only to employees in Group C and Group D. In view of both these considerations we have to hold that the respondent No. 4 was above age as he was clearly much above 15 years of age at the relevant time and hence was not qualified. ( 7 ) SHRI J. N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent invited our attention to the proviso to rule 5-B (2) of the Cantonment Board Service Rules, 1937 which reads as follows: "provided that the Officer Commanding-in-chief, by Command, may, if he considers it necessary so to do and subject to any directions issued by the Central Government in this behalf, relax the aforesaid age limits generally or specially, with reference to specified categories or specific Cantonments or with reference to individual cases to such extent as he considers appropriate. " ( 8 ) IT is true that this proviso enables the Officer Commanding-in-Chief to relax the age limit, but in this case we do not find any order of the Officer Commanding-in-Chief making any such relaxation. " ( 8 ) IT is true that this proviso enables the Officer Commanding-in-Chief to relax the age limit, but in this case we do not find any order of the Officer Commanding-in-Chief making any such relaxation. Since under the proviso only the Officer Commanding-in-Chief can relax the age limit, it follows that no other authority can exercise this power except the Central Government. Hence this proviso does not help the respondent No. 4. ( 9 ) IN the result, this writ petition is allowed. The appointment letter dated January 7, 1991 of respondent No. 4 true copy of which is Annexure-7 to the Writ petition is hereby quashed. The respondent No. 1 the Cantonment Board, Meerut is now directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in accordance with law. ( 10 ) NO order as to costs. .