Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. The petitioner has stated that he has passed B.Sc., in physics, having obtained the degree from the University of Madras. The petitioner has also obtained a Diploma in Cooperative Management. He had enrolled himself with the District Employment Office. The District Employment Exchange, Krishnagiri, had sponsored his name for the post of Assistant in the third respondent Bank for the interview to be conducted from 6. 1998. The petitioner was called for the interview, on 16. 1998. However, no recruitment was made on the said date. Later, it was informed that the first respondent had passed orders stopping all direct recruitment. 3. It has also been stated that the first respondent, vide letter No.30561/C1, dated 20.5.1999, had directed the second and third respondents to follow certain norms, while recruiting the staffs in the Co-operative Institutions, like, the third respondent Bank. A Government order in G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 5. 2000, had been issued directing the second and third respondents to follow the guidelines given in G.O.Ms.No.216, dated 1. 1998, relating to cadre strength etc. While so, a notice, dated 211. 2000, had been published in the Tamil news paper Dhina Mani to the effect that the candidates can approach the employment exchange and forward their names for selection to the various posts. In the said notice, it was stated that the third respondent has fixed the date of eligibility as 35 years of age, as on 10. 2000, in the case of schedule caste and schedule tribe candidates. The said notice had been issued pursuant to the circular of the second respondent, in Rc.No.145138/96 CBSI, dated 10. 1996. The petitioner has lost his chance for appointment due to the fact that he is over aged. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first and second respondents, the claims made by the petitioner had been denied. 5. It has been stated that the writ petition is not maintainable as it is premature in nature. No right had accrued to the petitioner to seek such a relief. Even though the petitioner had come for the interview, said to have been held, on 6. 5. It has been stated that the writ petition is not maintainable as it is premature in nature. No right had accrued to the petitioner to seek such a relief. Even though the petitioner had come for the interview, said to have been held, on 6. 1998, for recruitment to the third respondent Bank, no interview was held on the said date and the candidates had been asked to wait for future communications. 6. It has been further stated that in the Government letter No.1/Secretary(Per)98, Corporation, Food and consumer protection Department, dated 28. 1998, the first respondent had ordered to stop all the recruitments for appointment of staff in the Cooperative Institutions. In G.O.(Ms).No.216, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 9. 1998, the State Government had ordered that 85% of the vacancies should be filled up by direct recruitment, by following the seniority list maintained by the concerned District Employment Exchange and 15% of the vacancies should be filled up by the employees, who are in the service of the concerned society and its affiliated societies based on their seniority in service. Hence, the recruitment process had been stopped. Therefore, no one else was considered for recruitment to the third respondent Bank at the time of the interview, on 6. 1998. Therefore, no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner and he has no right to any post or to the process of the recruitment and therefore, the writ petition is premature. .7. It has been further stated that the Government in letter No.30561/CC1/98-1, dated 20.5.1999, the ban imposed, on 28. 1998, was lifted and certain guidelines had been issued for the recruitment of the staff for the Co-operative institutions. Thus, the petitioner would be considered for recruitment only under the revised policy of the Government and in accordance with the guidelines issued thereon. 8. It has been further stated that the maximum age limit for appointment to the post of Assistant was fixed on par with the age limits fixed in G.O.Ms.No.25, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 21. 1995, for recruitment of personnel in Government service. Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1988, provides that the age of entry into the service in Co-operative institutions shall be as prescribed by the Government in respect of recruitment of Government staff. 1995, for recruitment of personnel in Government service. Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1988, provides that the age of entry into the service in Co-operative institutions shall be as prescribed by the Government in respect of recruitment of Government staff. Hence, the mandatory requirement in respect of the age of recruitment cannot be deviated under any circumstances. Therefore, the representations made by the petitioner, dated 110. 2000 and 1. 2001, could not be considered in his favour. There is no vested right created in the petitioner by his attending the interview for the appointment as an Assistant in the third respondent Bank. He cannot be deemed to have been considered for the post of Assistant in the third respondent Bank, merely on the strength of the interview cards sent to him. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as being without merits. .9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it has been stated that the writ petition is not maintainable both in law and on facts. It has been stated that during the year 1998, the Managing Director, Dharmapuri Central Co-operative Bank, had notified twenty vacancies of Assistants, under various categories, for being recruited in the third respondent Bank. The District Employment Officer, Krishnagiri, had notified about the vacancies and he was instructed to send the names of the eligible candidates. Accordingly, the District Employment Officer, Krishnagiri, had sent a list of eligible candidates based on the district seniority. The cut-off date of seniority was 11. 1993. As the date of seniority of registration of the petitioner was 4. 1992, his name had been nominated in list No.X2/77/98. The third respondent Bank had sent call letters to the candidates nominated. The candidates had attended the interview conducted by the third respondent Bank. However, due to the announcement of the parliamentary elections, the interview had been postponed to a later date. Subsequently, the list of candidates were returned to the District Employment Office, Krishnagiri, by the third respondent Bank, stating that the vacancies could not be filled up due to administrative reasons. In the year 2000, the Managing Director, Dharmapuri District Central Co-operative Bank, had notified sixty nine vacancies of Assistants to the District Employment Officer, Krishnagiri. 10. Subsequently, the list of candidates were returned to the District Employment Office, Krishnagiri, by the third respondent Bank, stating that the vacancies could not be filled up due to administrative reasons. In the year 2000, the Managing Director, Dharmapuri District Central Co-operative Bank, had notified sixty nine vacancies of Assistants to the District Employment Officer, Krishnagiri. 10. It has been further stated that the upper age limit prescribed by the employer was 35 years for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes/Most Backward Class/Backward class candidates, as on 10. 2000. The District Employment Officer, Krishnagiri, in a press release, dated 211. 2000, had informed the tentative cut-off dates of seniority in the registration adopted for selection of the candidates to avoid omissions, since the recruitment was to be made strictly on seniority basis, in the ratio of 1:1 against each vacancy. The lists of eligible candidates were sent to the employer in the letter No.A3/11958/2000, dated 1. 2001, issued by the District Employment Officer, Krishnagiri. As the date of birth of the petitioner was 15. 1963, he had crossed the maximum age limit of 35 years, as on 10. 2000, which was the crucial date for nomination. Hence, the name of the petitioner had not been nominated to the third respondent Bank to be considered for recruitment as an Assistant. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim the reliefs, as prayed for in the petition. 11. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 12. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is premature in nature. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that certain rights had accrued to him by merely attending the interview for recruitment to the post of Assistants in the third respondent Bank. The third respondent Bank had to follow the guidelines issued by the State Government, as well as the Registrar of Co-operative societies, for recruitment of candidates in the Cooperative institutions. Accordingly, the Management of the third respondent Bank had requested the concerned District Employment Officers to nominate the eligible candidates for taking part in the recruitment process. The third respondent Bank had to follow the guidelines issued by the State Government, as well as the Registrar of Co-operative societies, for recruitment of candidates in the Cooperative institutions. Accordingly, the Management of the third respondent Bank had requested the concerned District Employment Officers to nominate the eligible candidates for taking part in the recruitment process. Accordingly, the fourth respondent had sent the lists of eligible candidates by a letter, dated 1. 2001. The name of the petitioner could not be nominated by the fourth respondent, as the date of birth of the petitioner was 15. 1963 and since he had crossed the maximum age limit of 35 years fixed as the upper age limit, as on 10. 2000. According to Rule 149 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, the Rules applicable to the Government servants shall be followed for appointment in Co-operative Institutions, with regard to the reservation for appointments and the age for appointment. Therefore, the procedures followed by the third respondent bank for recruiting personnel is in accordance with the said Rule. It is for the petitioner to show that certain rights had accrued to him. Since the petitioner has not been in a position to show that certain vested rights had accrued to him, with regard to the appointments that were being made in the third respondent Bank, the prayer sought for in the present writ petition cannot be sustained. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.