ORDER : N.P. Singh, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. A writ petition was filed before the High Court on behalf of the appellants along with 3 others challenging the appointment of 16 candidates selected by the Selection Committee. It was alleged on behalf of the appellants that many of the candidates so selected and appointed did not possess requisite qualifications. The learned Single Judge issued the following directions: 'I have heard counsel for the parties. While it is the prerogative of the employer to lay down qualification for a post, it appears to be equally clear that such qualifications must have a reasonable relation to the job requirements and only those who fulfil the prescribed qualification should be appointed. In the present case, the advertisement specifically provided that the candidate must have besides the academic qualification, three years' experience in a Government office or a semi-government body. A person who did not fulfil this qualification would obviously not be eligible to be considered for appointment. Further, the report sent by the Assistant Registrar clearly shows that the Selection Committee had considered persons who did not actually fulfil this qualification. In this situation, one view can be that the whole selection is vitiated. However, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, it may not be fair to upset the entire selection on the basis of the report of the Assistant Registrar especially when it has not even been stated that the selected candidates had been given an opportunity to put forth their viewpoint. In this situation, it appears to be just and proper to remit the matter to the Chief Administrator of the Board, who will examine the qualifications of each selected person. In case the petitioners so desire, they may put forth the factual position with regard to each selected candidate in writing. If on consideration of the material as may be produced by the petitioner, the Chief Administrator finds that there are doubts regarding the eligibility of one or the other candidate, he would give an opportunity to that candidate to show that he fulfilled the requisite qualifications. Thereafter, the respondent shall decide the matter finally by passing a speaking order. In case it is found that a person who did not fulfil the prescribed qualification has been selected, the selection and appointment of such a person shall stand quashed.' 3. Thereafter, the respondent shall decide the matter finally by passing a speaking order. In case it is found that a person who did not fulfil the prescribed qualification has been selected, the selection and appointment of such a person shall stand quashed.' 3. That order was affirmed by the Division Bench on appeal filed on behalf of the appellants. 4. During the hearing of the appeal Mr P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents informed the Court that the Chief Administrator has examined the cases of the persons appointed and has found that 5 out of them did not possess the requisite qualifications. The services of such 5 candidates have been terminated. He also stated that one of the appointees has already resigned. In this background, no useful purpose will be served by examining the grievances made on behalf of the appellants in detail. 5. Accordingly, we direct that for the vacancies which have occurred, the case of the appellants along with others be considered in accordance with law. The claim for being appointed to the post in question shall not be rejected on the ground of age bar because they have been pursuing the remedy before the court of law. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.