Judgment :- 1. The prayer in this writ petition is seeking for a mandamus, forbearing the second respondent from appointing any person to the post of part-time Clerk, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.175, dated 05.12.2006. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a resident of Eluvanampatti village and belongs to Schedule Caste Community. A post of part-time Clerk fell vacant at the second respondent Panchayat during the year 2006. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an application on 20.04.2007 to the second respondent Panchayat. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.175, dated 05.12.2006 prescribing qualification to the post of part-time Clerk. As per the said G.O., the individuals should have completed 28 years at the time of appointment. The second respondent, though received many applications from the eligible candidates, including the petitioner, had chosen to appoint the third respondent to the said post. The third respondent was only 20 years old at the time of appointment and therefore, such appoint was in violation of G.O.Ms.No.175, dated 05.12.2006. Though, the Panchayat had passed a resolution to appoint the third respondent to the said post, he was not appointed so far and therefore, the present writ petition is filed seeking for a mandamus as stated supra. 3. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that in order to fill up the vacancy of part-time Clerk, a meeting was convened and applications were called for from eligible candidates. The third respondent was appointed through resolution, dated 29.08.2007, under resolution No.69. The said appointment was also communicated to the Director of Rural Development, on 01.09.2007. The third respondent is fully qualified for being appointed as 'Village Assistant'. Considering his capability and eligibility in respect of both educational and other qualifications, he was appointed. Pursuant to the appointment, the third respondent is discharging his duties. The petitioner was one among the aspirants. 4. It is further stated by the second respondent that the age limit prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.175 is only an upper age limit and not as contended by the petitioner. The third respondent was aged 21 years and therefore, he was well within the upper age limit of 28 years. Several applications were received and after careful consideration and interviewing the candidates, the third respondent was appointed, based on his merit and ability and also by considering his educational qualification with computer knowledge. 5. The third respondent was aged 21 years and therefore, he was well within the upper age limit of 28 years. Several applications were received and after careful consideration and interviewing the candidates, the third respondent was appointed, based on his merit and ability and also by considering his educational qualification with computer knowledge. 5. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 6. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent's appointment was made against G.O.Ms.No.175, dated 05.12.2006. According to the petitioner, as per the said G.O. the person, who was appointed should have completed 28 years at the time of appointment. 7. A perusal of the said G.O does not indicate so. Though, it says that the individual must have 28 years as on 1st day of July of that year, in so far as the other candidates are concerned, further reading of the said G.O. clearly contemplates that in so far as backward class/MBC/SC community people, it is stated that the upper age limit is 33 years. The combined reading of both these clauses, would only indicate that what was meant as 28 years is only the upper age limit and not the age as on 1st July of that year. At any event, as admittedly, the third respondent had been appointed to the post by the second respondent and the petitioner had only sought for a mandamus and not challenged the appointment of the third respondent, I find that the writ petition is also not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the appointment of the third respondent. Even otherwise, as I have found that there was no violation of the said order, while making appointment of the third respondent, I find no merit in the writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.