Judgment :- 1. The petitioner, after qualifying her SSLC in March 1980, acquired the qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy in September, 1985. The petitioner got herself registered with the District Employment Exchange, Madurai in the year 1985. The family of the petitioner thereafter shifted to Chennai, therefore, she got her name registered with the Employment Exchange, Chennai. 2. The petitioner was called for interview for considering her candidature for appointment as Pharmacist in the year 1991, 1995 and 2001. It is admitted case of petitioner, that she was not selected in the interview, thus, not offered the appointment. 3. On 02.05.2002, the petitioner received a communication, calling her to appear for interview on 14.05.2002 for the post of Pharmacist in the Institute of Child Health and Hospital for Children, Chennai. It is submitted, that the petitioner attended the interview, but she was orally informed that her candidature could not be considered, as she was overage by two years. 4. It is pleaded case of petitioner, that since the year 1999, the post of Pharmacist was filled up on the basis of District Employment Exchange's seniority, therefore, she was entitled to be appointed and that the decision of the respondents not to consider her candidature, because of her age was contrary to the rules, which did not prescribe any age or appointment in case of persons possessing qualification of Diploma. 5. It is not necessary to go into this question, as for the reasons best known, the petitioner has not challenged the selection for the post for Pharmacist in the Institute of Child Health and Hospital for Children, Chennai. Instead of challenging the selection, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as Pharmacist in any one of the available vacancies, based on her seniority of employment exchange, by relaxing the rules. 6. The prayer made in this writ petition cannot be granted, firstly for the reason, that this Hon'ble High Court cannot issue a direction to appoint a person to the post, as any such direction would be violative of the Constitution of India. 6. The prayer made in this writ petition cannot be granted, firstly for the reason, that this Hon'ble High Court cannot issue a direction to appoint a person to the post, as any such direction would be violative of the Constitution of India. In order to satisfy the requirement of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, the public post can only be filled up by considering the case of all eligible persons, and the petitioner can only claim the right of consideration as and when the post is advertised for being filled. 7. The prayer of the petitioner, that she be directed to be appointed on the basis of employment exchange's seniority also cannot be accepted, as any such rule restricting the appointment on the basis of employment exchange seniority alone, is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The employment exchange is only one of the sources for consideration for appointment, but the State is legally bound not only to call names from the employment exchange, but also to advertise the posts so as to enable all the eligible persons to compete for the post. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Government instructions, issued vide G.O.Ms.No.191 dated 14.06.2000, laying down, that the posts in the various Districts' Health Units are to be filled up from the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange purely on the basis of employment exchange seniority and by following the rule of reservation, in terms of general rule 22. 9. This contention also cannot advance the case of petitioner, as G.O.Ms.No.191 dated 14.06.2000 is violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, as it denies the right of consideration for appointment to all eligible persons to the public post. 10. The instructions being unconstitutional, therefore, cannot form a basis to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, as prayed for. 11. As already observed above, the petitioner, for the reasons best known, has chosen not to challenge the selection, on the ground of her wrongly rejection.