JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner belongs to Hindu Pallan Community, which is a recognised Scheduled Caste community, after passing 8th Standard, she got her name registered with the District Employment Office, Trichy, on 29.02.1996. The registration of petitioner was later transferred to the District Employment Office, Perambalur, on bifurcation of Trichy District. 2. The petitioner was working as a Cook in the Adidravidar Government Girls Hostel, Ammapalayam, Perambalur District on temporary basis. She worked there from 01.09.1992 to 26.03.1993. She was again appointed on temporary basis till December 1994. 3. In January 1995, the petitioner was appointed as Cook in the Adidravida Government Girls Hostel, Kurmbalur on daily wages and was working there till filing of the original application before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal. 4. The petitioner was called for an interview for appointment to the post of Cook on 06.09.2001. The petitioner, in response to the interview letter, filed a representation with the respondent to regularize her service as Cook, by taking into account the service rendered by her on temporary / daily wage basis. 5. The petitioner was advised to attend the interview, which she did. The submission of petitioner is that though she was confident of being selected, but she was not selected, being overage by 29 days. 6. The petitioner has not placed on record any order, showing that she was rejected being overage. The very fact, that the petitioner was considered and interviewed shows, that the eligibility of petitioner for appointment was not doubted. 7. The petitioner again sent a representation by placing reliance on instructions issued vide G.O.Ms.No.21 Labour and Employment (N2) Department dated 02.02.2000, stipulating relaxation of one year for every three years of registration with the Employment Exchange, subject to maximum of five years. 8. It is pleaded case of petitioner, that in view of the Government instructions, the petitioner was entitled to age relaxation by two years, therefore, it was not open to the respondents to reject her candidature for appointment on the ground that she was overaged by 29 days. 9. The pleadings show, that the petitioner competed with others, but was not selected. The petitioner has not challenged the selection of the persons selected, nor she has challenged the order, rejecting her candidature, being overage. 10. 9. The pleadings show, that the petitioner competed with others, but was not selected. The petitioner has not challenged the selection of the persons selected, nor she has challenged the order, rejecting her candidature, being overage. 10. In absence of order of rejection, being placed on record, and challenge to the selection of the selected persons, the relief claimed by the petitioner to set aside the order of selection, cannot be gone into. 11. The claim of petitioner that she is entitled to regularization of service for having rendered serviced on temporary / daily wage basis, also cannot be accepted, as the petitioner has not placed on record any rules or instructions, under which the petitioner could claim regularization of service for having rendered service on temporary / daily wage basis, when her case was considered and she could not come on merit. 12. The petitioner has also not shown whether her appointment on temporary / daily wage basis was by way of regular procedure or by back door entry. 13. The relief claimed, therefore, cannot be granted to petitioner. 14. Consequently, this writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is ordered to be dismissed. 15. No costs.