Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The petitioner was appointed as a Technical Assistant in the Indian Council for Agricultural Research, 1st respondent herein, with effect from 09.11.1977. There are three branches of services in the 1st respondent organisation viz., scientific, technical and administrative. The Service Rules were framed by the 1st respondent in the year 1975 and they came into force from 01.10.1975. Apart from other things, rules provided for four grades of scientists in the first cadre. For initial constitution of that service, it was provided that such of the employees, who were in service as on 01.10.1975 and who hold the post graduate degrees for being considered for the post of Scientists (Grade-S). The petitioner states that though he was eligible to be considered on that category, he was not designated as Scientist (Grade-S). 2. He pleaded that the recruitment process for the post held by him commenced much prior to 01.10.1975 and several persons similarly situated like him were extended the benefit of designation as Scientists (Grade-S). 3. Ventilating his grievance, he filed O.A.No.34 of 1998 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The respondent resisted the O.A. by taking the plea that the petitioner did not fulfil the qualifications stipulated under the relevant rules. They stated that the cut off date is 01.10.1975 for the purpose of designating the technical staff holding Post Graduate degrees as Scientists (Grade-S) and an extended facility was granted in favour of those persons who were appointed subsequent to 01.10.1975 also, if the concerned selection process has commenced before that date. 4. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. through its order dated 24.09.1999. Hence, this petition. 5. Heard Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Though the 1st respondent organisation was functioning much prior to 1975, the service rules were framed only in that year with effect from 01.10.1975. It has already been mentioned that three separate wings of employees were functioning in the organisation. Consequent upon framing of the rules, the organisation decided to constitute the initial service in the scientific category through the process of absorption from the category of technicians also. The requirement was that the candidates must be in service as on 01.10.1975 and he must hold post graduate degree. 7. Consequent upon framing of the rules, the organisation decided to constitute the initial service in the scientific category through the process of absorption from the category of technicians also. The requirement was that the candidates must be in service as on 01.10.1975 and he must hold post graduate degree. 7. The stipulation as to the candidate being in service as on 01.10.1975 gave rise to some uncertainty. Though in certain cases the selection process commenced much prior to 01.10.1975, the orders of appointment came to be issued subsequent to that date. To give the benefit of doubt in this behalf, modified instructions were issued to the effect that in case the selection process has commenced prior to 01.10.1975, the candidates would be considered even if their orders of appointment were issued subsequent to that date. The clarification issued by the 1st respondent in this behalf reads: “In relaxation of Rule 23 of ARS Rules, Technical personnel appointed in Council’s service after 01.10.1975 on the basis of the recruitment action (advertisement, interview) initiated prior to that date may be considered for induction with effect from the date of their joining the Council’s service (in technical posts) subject to possession of Master’s Degree qualification on that date.” 8. In case the process of selection for the petitioner commenced from 01.10.1975, the 1st respondent would have been certainly under obligation to consider his case, notwithstanding the fact that he was appointed through order dated 05.11.1977. That, however, is not the case. The record discloses that the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the employment exchange in response to a requisition given on 09.08.1977. The process of appointment cannot be said to have commenced anterior to that date. 9. An attempt is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to convince this Court that the process can be said to have started when Ford Foundation came forward to fund the 1st respondent for undertaking the research. It is difficult to accept that contention. The selection process can be said to have commenced either on the date on which the advertisement is issued or the communication has been sent to the employment exchange. 10. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has been selected as a Scientist in the 1st respondent organisation on the basis of selection, which took place in the year 2008. 10. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has been selected as a Scientist in the 1st respondent organisation on the basis of selection, which took place in the year 2008. A request is made on his behalf to treat the selection with retrospective effect from the date of his appointment as Technical Assistant. We express our inability to accept his request. The Tribunal has taken correct view. Therefore, we are not inclined to take a different view. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand disposed of.