JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasanthakurnar, J. This writ petition is filed praying to set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (Circuit at Jammu) (hereinafter to be referred as “The Tribunal”) dated 21.04.2009 made in TA No.30/JK/2006 wherein the petitioner has prayed to quash the appointment of respondent Nos.5 to 7, as their appointments wherein made without inviting applications through advertisement and only on the basis that their names were sponsored through employment exchange. It is also prayed that the petitioner be ordered to be appointed as per the offer of appointment given on 29.12.2000. 2. The case projected by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal was that she was appointed against a vacancy which arose due to suspension of an employee in the year 1998 and the said person having been restored, petitioner was disengaged. According to the petitioner, she submitted an application based on which an offer of appointment was given to her on 29.12.2000. However, the petitioner has not been permitted to join. Since respondent Nos.5 to 7 were appointed without calling for applications from open market, their appointments were challenged by the writ petitioner with the consequential prayer. 3. In answer to the said contention, tile department pleaded that the petitioner having been appointed in a temporary vacancy which arose clue to suspension of one Bodh Raj and suspension of said person having been revoked; petitioner was disengaged and the appointment of private respondents were made after getting sponsorship through employment exchange. 4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner’s name was not sponsored through employment exchange for consideration and the claim of the petitioner is that now a vacancy is available, therefore, based on her earlier service, she can be accommodated. 5. The Superintendent of Police Office is bound to follow the rules for appointments. The rules states that appointment can be made only by calling applications through open market as well as calling for list from employment exchange. Hence unless the applications are invited consideration of the claim of the petitioner does not arise, Even otherwise, appointment of private respondents was made after getting sponsorship through employment exchange which is also a source. Non calling of applications by issuing advertisement is only an irregularity. Hence appointment made after sponsorship from the employment exchange is not illegal Therefore, their appointment cannot be quashed. Non calling of applications by issuing advertisement is only an irregularity. Hence appointment made after sponsorship from the employment exchange is not illegal Therefore, their appointment cannot be quashed. Hence the prayer of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. 6. Insofar as petitioner’s prayer that she be appointed on the basis of offer made to her is concerned, the said alleged offer was given without any sponsorship or selection process, hence the petitioner cannot insist that said offer be implemented. Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that if vacancies are being filled up, it is open to the petitioner to apply and her claim shall also be considered on merits No costs. Writ Petition dismissed.