Judgment :- Challenge in this Writ Petition is the appointment of the fifth Respondent as Lab Attendant and directing the Respondents to conduct the interview afresh and other directions. 2. The Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha [for short Council], is a society registered under Societies Registration Act. The aims and objects of the Council are to carry out research in Ayurveda and Siddha Systems of Medicines on modern lines, as per the memorandum of Association and Rules, Regulations and bye-laws of the council. Governing body is in-charge of the management of the affairs of the Society. Appointments are subject to approval of the President of the Central Council – Minister of Health and Family Welfare, Union of India. .3. Factual background of this Writ Petition are as follows:- The Petitioner was appointed as Aya in 1979. As per the Government Orders, the departmental candidates are eligible to compete along with candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. In the Interview for the post of Lab Attendant held on 212. 1984, the Petitioner was called for as Departmental Candidate. The Selection Committee did not recommend her name for the post. On 19.04.1999, an interview was held for the post of Lab Attendant in Captain Srinivasa Murti Drug Research Institute for Ayurveda, [hereinafter referred to as Institute] and the Petitioner appeared for interview as Departmental Candidate. Selection Committee recommended her name and the same was sent to Head Quarters Office of the Council for approval. The Central Council has not recommended the Petitioner as she was over aged and the Institute was informed accordingly. .4. As advised by the Council, the fourth Respondent conducted interview for the post of Lab Attendant afresh on 25.08.2000. The Petitioner also applied for the said post but she was not allowed to attend the interview held on 25.08.2000, since she was over aged. Six candidates, including the fifth Respondent, have attended the interview. The fifth Respondent, who joined the services of the Institute as a Kitchen Servant in the year 1982, was recommended by Selection Committee. The recommendations of the Selection Committee was approved by the council and thereafter, the fifth Respondent was appointed for the post of Lab Attendant and he also joined the post on 212. 2000 in the Institute at Chennai. Appointment of the fifth Respondent as Lab Attendant is challenged in this Writ Petition. .5. The recommendations of the Selection Committee was approved by the council and thereafter, the fifth Respondent was appointed for the post of Lab Attendant and he also joined the post on 212. 2000 in the Institute at Chennai. Appointment of the fifth Respondent as Lab Attendant is challenged in this Writ Petition. .5. On behalf of the Petitioner, it was firstly contended that selection and appointment of the fifth Respondent by the Selection Committee is not on merits and experience, but only on extraneous consideration. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the fifth Respondent was working as Kitchen Assistant and his nature of work is in no way connected with the post of Lab Attendant, whereas the Petitioner is having 22 years of experience working in the lab. Qualification prescribed for the appointment to the post of Lab Attendant/Group C post is Matriculation or equivalent, with one year experience in the lab. Age limit prescribed under the Rules for the Departmental candidate is upto the age of 40 years, 43 years for OBC and 45 years in case of SC/ST candidates. On 11.08.2000, the fourth Respondent had called for applications for recruitment to the post of Lab Attendant. About six candidates, including the fifth Respondent, were called for interview to the post of Lab Attendant. Selection Committee has short listed three candidates. Name of the fifth Respondent figured top in the panel and it was recommended by the Selection Committee. The recommendation of the Selection Committee containing names of the short listed candidates was sent to Central Council, New Delhi. Upon consideration of the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Central council granted approval for appointment of the fifth Respondent has Lab Attendant in the scale of Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4590/-. After the Central Council granted approval and conveyed to the Institute that order of appointment can be issued to the incumbent, the third Respondent Institute has issued the appointment Order to the fifth Respondent. By going through the records, it is seen that the procedure contemplated under Recruitment Rules has been observed and the appointment of the fifth Respondent is in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not go into the merits of the decision. By going through the records, it is seen that the procedure contemplated under Recruitment Rules has been observed and the appointment of the fifth Respondent is in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not go into the merits of the decision. However, it may be pointed out that the fifth Respondent is said to have worked as Lab Attendant in a private hospital for the period between 1981 to 1982, prior to his joining the third Respondent Institute as Kitchen Assistant in 1982 and is said to be having previous experience. The contention of the Petitioner that the appointment of the fifth Respondent is not on merit but on extraneous considerations, has no force. 6. As noted earlier, departmental candidates are eligible to compete along with candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange upto the age of 40 years, 43 years in cases of OBC and 45 years in cases of SC/ST Candidates. The Petitioner was born on 11. 1954. In the interview held for the post of Lab Attendant in 1999, the Petitioner was allowed to appear as Departmental candidate. Recommendations of the Selection Committee recommending the Petitioners name was not approved by the Central Council as the Petitioner was over aged. It is contended that denial of appointment of Lab Attendant is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is to be pointed out that the Petitioner has not challenged the same in the year 1999, when the Central Council has not granted approval to the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Contention of the Petitioner that the reasons for non-approval was not communicated to her, has no merits. In the year 1999, if really the Petitioner was aggrieved over non grant of approval by the Central Council, she ought to have agitated the same at that point of time. 7. In all categories of Group A, B, C & D posts, Departmental candidates are eligible to compete with the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange for direct recruitment. On behalf of the Petitioner, it was contended that the upper age was relaxed in case of Departmental candidates for recruitment in Group A & B post. But such age relaxation was not granted in respect of Group C & D post. On behalf of the Petitioner, it was contended that the upper age was relaxed in case of Departmental candidates for recruitment in Group A & B post. But such age relaxation was not granted in respect of Group C & D post. It was further submitted that the benefit of age relaxation is to be extended to group C & D post also and by not relaxing the upper age limit for departmental candidates in respect of C & D post, the Departmental candidates appearing for C & D group are discriminated as against the Departmental candidates in Group A & B. Upon consideration of representation from Officers of the Council in the various cadres for relaxation of upper age limit in A, B, C & D post, the Council, in order to provide opportunity to the Departmental Candidates for making applications against advertisement to various posts, relaxed the upper age limit for departmental candidates for direct recruitment in Group A & B Post. .8. Drawing the attention of the Court to the Counter Affidavit, learned Counsel Mr.P.Wilson submitted that upper age limit in direct recruitment in Group A & B were provided, keeping in view the experience and expertise gained by the departmental candidates in the field under the Council. As the aims and objects of the Council are to carry out research in Ayurveda and Siddha Systems of Medicines on modern lines, for utilizing the experience and expertise gained by the departmental candidates in Group A & B, the Central Government thought fit to relax the upper age limit, treating Group A & B as one class and employees of Group C & D in lower hierarchy and it cannot be said that Group C & D are of the same class as that of Group A & B. 9. Contending that relaxation of age limit only for Group A and B and non relaxation of age limit for Group C and D employees is in violation of Article 14, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon AIR 1986 SC 1035 [Indiravadan H. Shaw Vs. State of Gujarat and another], which was referred by Division Bench of this Court in the decision in 2006 (5) CTC 705 [M.Radhakrishnan Vs. The Secretary, The Bar Council of India and another]. State of Gujarat and another], which was referred by Division Bench of this Court in the decision in 2006 (5) CTC 705 [M.Radhakrishnan Vs. The Secretary, The Bar Council of India and another]. In the decision cited supra, while considering the challenge to the age restriction in regard to the appointment of Assistant Judge by promotion, amongst members holding post of Civil Judges Junior Division and those in the cadre of Civil Judges [Senior Division], the Supreme Court has observed that "it is incomprehensible how these two cadres of Assistant Judges and District Judges can be treated as two different classes altogether and thereby justifying the introduction of age restriction ....". While so observing, the Supreme Court has held: "Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution ensure that there should not be any discrimination in the matter of appointment in service, nor there will be any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the rules of recruitment providing for the rules of appointment to the service either by promotion or by direct recruitment. There is no nexus to the object sought to be achieved by introducing the age restriction as regards the promotion by appointment to the post of Assistant Judge from amongst the members of the Gujarat Judicial Service (Junior Branch) as provided in Rules 6(4)(i) and 6(4)(iii)(a) of the said Rules. But in respect of appointment to the highest post of a District Judge by promotion from amongst the members of the Junior Branch who have served as Assistant Judges no such restriction of age has been provided in Rules 6(2)(i)(a) and (b) of the said Rules. There is obviously no rationale nor any reasonableness for introduction of this age bar in regard to appointment by promotion to the post of an Assistant Judge. The rule, is therefore, arbitrary, and it violates the salutary principles of equality and want of arbitrariness in the matter of public employment as guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution." In the said case before the Supreme Court, Gujarat Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, as amended in 1979, was challenged and in that context, the Supreme Court had elaborately considered the Rules and observed that the Rules 6(4)(i) read with 6(4)(iii)(a) are irrational, arbitrary and unreasonable, as there is no nexus as to the object said to be achieved by introducing age restriction in regard to the appointment of Assistant Judge. In the case on hand, the Petitioner has not challenged the Rules nor as she challenged the proceedings of the Central Council relaxing the age limit in respect of departmental candidates for recruitment in A & B posts [dated 30.06.1999]. While so, the above position cannot be applied to the present case. 10. Central Council found not feasible to relax the upper age limit in respect of direct recruitment of Group C & D post. When the Council found it not feasible to relax the upper age limit in respect of Group C & D, the Court would not issue any direction to the employee to relax the age limit for group C & D also. The statutory authority is entitled to frame Rules laying down the terms and conditions of service and also the qualifications and age limit, essential for holding particular post. It is only the authority concerned can take ultimate decision therefor. It is well settled that jurisdiction of the superior Courts would be only to interpret the Rule and not to supplant or supplement the same. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Courts ordinarily do not direct an employer to prescribe qualifications for holding a particular post or fix particular age limit. Under the premise of individualising justice, the rules framed by the Council cannot be supplanted or supplemented. 11. Appointment of the fifth Respondent is in accordance with the Rules. There is no illegality or procedural irregularity in appointing the fifth Respondent. The Petitioner cannot successfully challenge the appointment of the fifth Respondent. 12. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.