JUDGMENT : G.S. Sanghawalaia, J. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the instructions dated 23.04.1984 (Annexure P-1) and the public notice dated 20.11.2015 (Annexure P-3) wherein, the relaxation has been granted of upper age limit to female candidates who are only widows/divorces upto the age of 42 years. The petitioner is aggrieved being an unmarried lady and prays for inclusion in the said category on account of the fact that she has become over age for applying for the post of Punjabi Mistress as the upper age limit is 37 years as per clause 5 of the advertisement (Annexure P-3). 2. A perusal of the letter dated 23.04.1984 issued by the Government would to on to show that certain categories of women have been granted this benefit. The categories are widows and women who are legally separated from their husbands, women who are being given maintenance by Courts, women who have been living separately on account of desertion by their husbands for more than a period of 2 years and women whose husbands have remarried or wives of serving military personnel and those who are disabled while in military service. 3. The rationale, thus, is apparently to grant the benefits to a specific category who are having further handicaps and to help them progress in life. This is a policy decision of the State and there is no such absolute legal right of the petitioner to seek a writ of mandamus as such and there is no Statute providing such relaxation on the basis of which, the petitioner can seek a relief. 4. In the absence of any legal vested right and the fact that it remains a policy decision and on account of settled principle that the Courts are not to interfere in the methodology of appointments or the criteria of selection as laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Pushpa Rani and others, 2008 (11) SCR 440 , the same would remain within the domain of the employer. The issue in question in the said case which arose was the question of reservation for the post and the restructuring of the cadres. It was accordingly held as under:- "29. The issue in question in the said case which arose was the question of reservation for the post and the restructuring of the cadres. It was accordingly held as under:- "29. Before parting with this aspect of the case, we consider it necessary to reiterate the settled legal position that matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of the employees fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. What steps should be taken for improving efficiency of the administration is also the preserve of the employer. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala fides. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post be filled by direct recruitment or promotion or by transfer. The Court has no role in determining the methodology of recruitment or laying down the criteria of selection. It is also not open the Court to make comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The Court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should structure or restructure the cadres for the purpose of improving efficiency of administration." 5. Keeping in view the said principles laid down by the Apex Court, it is not possible to grant the positive relief of a writ of mandamus as the petitioner is praying for. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.