JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 4-9-1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, in O. A. No. 572 of 1997. 2. The brief facts leading to this application, as it reveals from the record, are as follows :-- The petitioner has passed Intermediate in Arts and possessed Hindi Typewriting qualification. A requisition was sent by the Director, Central Rice Research Institute, o. p. No.1, to the District Employment Officer. o.p. No. 2, vide letter dated 25-10-1995, Annexqre-A/1 to the Counter affidavit, to sponsor candidates for filling up one vacancy in the post of Junior Clerk (Hindi Typist) and the candidates should have Hindi as one of the subjects in the Matriculation examination and should have knowledge in Hindi type-writing. In response to the above letter, as sufficient candidates were not available o. p. No. 2 sponsored only one candidate having the requisite qualification by letter dated 4-11-1995. As the employer o.p. No. 1 was not in a position to make selection from only one candidate Sponsored by o. p. No. 2, on 13-12-1995 another requisition was made vide Ahnexure-4 wherein the educational qualification was slightly relaxed so as to enable o. p. No. 2 to sponsor 'at least 10 candidates and not more than 20 candidates, but the qualifying age, as fixed earlier, remained the same, i. e., between 18 and 25 years as on 1-1-1995. Pursuant to the above revised requisition; o. p No. 2 by letter dated. 8-2-1996 sponsored names of 26 candidates vide Annexure-A/2 and thereafter by letter dated 23-2-1996 name of one more candidate was sponsored as the same was left out due to oversight. About a year thereafter, by letter dated 11.-4-.1997, o. p. No, 1 sent another requisition to o. p. No. 2 to sponsor not more than 20 candidates for the single post in question stating therein, that "The particulars of suitable candidates sponsored earlier vide your office order No. OG/73/954249 dated 4-11-1995 were not effected for conducting the interview due to some administrative reasons". In reply to the above letter, o. p. No. 2 by letter dated 29-4-1997 refused to send further names and requested o. p. No. 1, the employer, to conduct the interview of the candidates sponsored earlier by letters dated 8-2-1996 and 28-2-1996 wherein names of 27 candidates including the name of o. p. No. 3 had been sponsored. Accordingly, the authorities of o. p. No. 1 fixed 30-9-1997 as the date of written and type test and proceeded to hold the same on the basis of the list of names so sponsored by the Employment Exchange. As o. p. No. 2 did not sponsor the name of the petitioner, he challenged the action of o. p. No. 2 in not sponsoring his name for the post in question before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'. The Tribunal by an interim order dated 26-9-1997 allowed the present petitioner to sit in the interview which, according to the petitioner, was scheduled to be held on 30-9-1997 for the post of Junior Clerk (Hindi Typist), and further directed that the result of the applicant would not be published without its leave. The present o. p. No. 3 intervened, in the matter and his intervention petition was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 6-1-1998. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not attained the age of 18 years as on 1-1-95, which was the pre-requisite and basing on which the Employment Exchange sponsored names of eligible candidates. The employer while making requisition to the Employment Exchange by letter dated 13-12-1995, vide Annex-ure-4, fixed the age of intending candidates between 18 and 25 years as on 1-1-1995. Since the petitioner has not attained the age of 18 years as on 1-1-1995, his name was not sponsored. The petitioner, however, stated that if the requisition dated 11-4-1997, which was the third requisition, would have been accepted by the Employment Exchange, then the Employment Exchange could have sponsored his name along with names of other candidates within the age group of 18 to 25 years as on 1-1-1997 so that he could have got a chance to appear in the interview regularly. It appears that as o. p. No. 3 had already attained the requisite age as on 1-1-1995, his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. It appears that as o. p. No. 3 had already attained the requisite age as on 1-1-1995, his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The case of the petitioner is that it is the prerogative of the employer to fix the qualification as required including the age and make the requisition to the Employment Exchange accordingly. The petitioner further stated that the Employment Exchange should have acted in terms of the requisition dated 11-4-1997 and has committed an irregularity by not accepting the same and further erred by directing the employer to proceed on the basis of the list of candidates so sponsored by it as per the requisition dated 13-12-1995. 3. On perusal of the order-sheet of the Tribunal for winch the records were called for, we find that oh 20-2-1998 the learned counsel for the petitioner expresed his unwillingness to proceed with the original application and undertook to file a memo, in that regard in course of that day as it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the petitioner was underaged on the date of reference. As memo, to the above effect was not filed, the matter was heard and decided on merit. 4. The learned Tribunal held that the date of the petitioner being recorded as 21-5-1977, he had not completed 18 years of age as on 1-1-1995, which was the reference date, and there-fore, he was not eligible to be sponsored for the post in terms of the requisition dated 13-12-1995, The Tribunal further held that the fact that petitioner was underaged was deliberately suppressed before it while the interim order was passed allowing him to sit in the examination. From the documents filed by o. p. No. 1, the Tribunal found that on the basis of written and type test, petitioner and o. p. No. 3 were recommended in that order to be called for the interview fixed to 1-10-1997, and on the basis of such interview, the recruiting authorities had recommended only the name of petitioner for the post. As it was already found that the petitioner did not have requisite age on the reference date, and his participation in the selection process was subject to the result of the original application, the Tribunal concluded that the petitioner could not have legally appeared in the interview and his selection could not, therefore, be sustained. As it was already found that the petitioner did not have requisite age on the reference date, and his participation in the selection process was subject to the result of the original application, the Tribunal concluded that the petitioner could not have legally appeared in the interview and his selection could not, therefore, be sustained. Accordingly, the application of the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal and consequently direction was given to o. p. No. 1 to consider the candidature of o. p. No. 3 who has qualified and stood second in the written test and type test and further directed to complete the process within thirty days. 5. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of the Tribunal and raised the following questions :-- "(1) Whether the Appointing Authority is the competent authority to fix the cut-off date with regard to age and other qualification for appointments of its employees ? (ii) Whether the Employment Exchange can deny fresh to sponsor the names of the candidates as per the requisition made by the Appointing Authority inter alia on the ground that the said Employment Exchange had sponsored the name of the candidates previously for the said post ? (iii) Whether the learned Central Administrative Tribunal can be substituted the place of the Appointing Authority ? (iv) Whether the appointing authority can defer the selection on administrative ground and add further stipulation and/or change any criteria for selection to a public post in the deferred advertisement and/or requisition to the Employment Exchange ? (v) Whether the intervenor can get any relief in a judicial proceeding ? (vi) Whether the learned Tribunal can direct for consideration of the case of the Intervenor for appointment to a public post, even when the Selection Committee did not recommend the case of the Intervenor for such appointment and/or the Intervenor failed in the viva-voce test ? (viii) Whether 18 to 25 years as on a particular date will be calculated after the completion of 18 years or attaining the age of 18 years ?" 6. In order to testify the case of the petitioner, Shri R.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner, draws my attention to a decision of the Apex Court reported in Deputy Director (Minerals), Dalontgunj Circle, etc. Vs. In order to testify the case of the petitioner, Shri R.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner, draws my attention to a decision of the Apex Court reported in Deputy Director (Minerals), Dalontgunj Circle, etc. Vs. Mustak Ali and others wherein it was held that apart from calling for names from employment exchange, there should be a publication in the newspapers calling for applications so that eligible and fit candidates can be selected from out of such candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would have been fair if o. p. No. 1 would have made advertisement in the newspapers calling for candidates from the open market when o. p. No. 2 Employment Exchange refused to send names and insisted to conduct the interview on the basis of the list of candidates so sponsored by it earlier, 7. Shri G.A.R. Dora, learned counsel appearing for o, p. No. 3, submits that the Employment Exchange rightly did not sponsor any candidate in response to the third requisition of the employer and the selection was confined to the candidates earlier sponsored by the Employment Exchange in response to the second requisition although it was open to the employer to enlarge the field of selection and he could have made an open advertisement so that many more suitable candidates could have applied. The same being the prerogative of the employer and the employer having not done so, it is contended that o. p. No. 3, who is the successful candidate, should not be allowed to suffer. 8. Shri A.B. Mishra. learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India, submits that o. p. No 1 has no role to play in the matter and there was no irregularity or illegality in the process of selection. He further submits that the case of the petitioner can never be considered because he was absolutely not eligible to sit in the examination and only by virtue of the interim order, he was allowed to take the test. 9. No right is vested with the petitioner to lay a claim for the post in question. He further submits that the case of the petitioner can never be considered because he was absolutely not eligible to sit in the examination and only by virtue of the interim order, he was allowed to take the test. 9. No right is vested with the petitioner to lay a claim for the post in question. This is a case where admittedly if the names so sponsored by the Employment Exchange by letters dated 8-2-1996 and dated 28-2-1996 were considered and test was conducted basing on the aforesaid list of candidates, then the petitioner being not eligible could neither be considered for the same nor could his name be sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The sole case of the petitioner revolves round the fact that o. p. No. 1 wanted to abandon the second requisition and called for names by third requisition and if the third requisition would have been accepted by the Employment Exchange and if the Employment Exchange would have sponsored his name, then he could have come within the zone of consideration. Now let us see whether there is any irregularity attached to the conduct of the Employment Exchange which refused to send names in pursuance of the third requisition and by letter dated 29-4-1997 requested to conduct the interview out of the candidates sponsored earlier. No malafide has been attributed in this regard. The Employment Exchange had sent 27 names for one post and accordingly the 'interview was conducted. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not show any irregularity in conducting the interview by the authorities in order to substantiate his allegation and to allow his prayer. The case of the petitioner is that if the third requisition would have come, he could have got a chance to take the examination regularly. The fact remains that the petitioner was not eligible to compete in the examination as he was not within the required age as on 1-1-1995. In our considered opinion, no right accrues to the petitioner because of the reason that he was allowed to sit in the examination in pursuance of the interim order of the Tribunal and there is no irregularity or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal which requires interference by this Court. In above view of the matter, there is no need to go into the other question so raised. 10. In above view of the matter, there is no need to go into the other question so raised. 10. Considering the aforesaid aspects, we find no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal is upheld. No cost. M. Papanna, J. 11. I agree. 12. Writ petition dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed