ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The respondent approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") by filing O.A. No.849 (C) of 2009 seeking a direction to appoint him as Junior Assistant in DGPO cadre. 3. It is not necessary to refer the entire history of this case for adjudication of the dispute. 4. The respondent submitted before the Tribunal that persons who did not secure minimum required marks in each subject during the process of selection/recruitment have been called for the viva voce test and they have been appointed. He claimed to have secured more marks in aggregate than those candidates who were appointed, though he did not get minimum 33% marks in one subject. 5. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. filed by the respondent on the ground that the persons who did not secure the minimum marks were not made parties to the case. The Tribunal further held that no relief could be granted to the respondent due to the passage of a long period of time after the selections were finalized. The Tribunal ultimately held that the respondent has no legal right to claim appointment as he did not secure the required minimum marks. 6. The respondent approached the High Court challenging the order passed by the Tribunal. The High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and directed that the case of the respondent should be considered for appointment in the ex-cadre posts of Junior Assistant. 7. In spite of being aware of the fact that the respondent is not eligible as he did not get the minimum requisite marks in one subject, the High Court granted relief to the respondent on the ground that other persons who were similarly placed were given the appointment. 8. Shri Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that a few persons who were similarly situated to the respondent were given appointments in the year 1991 pursuant to the orders passed by the Tribunal which were affirmed by this Court. He also submits that the respondent is not eligible for appointment and the order passed by the High Court warrants interference by this Court. 9. He also submits that the respondent is not eligible for appointment and the order passed by the High Court warrants interference by this Court. 9. Shri P.N. Misra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent demonstrated before us by referring to the material on record that several other persons who did not secure the minimum marks were, in fact, given the benefit of appointment and there is no reason for discriminating the respondent. He also submits that he made representations to the Authorities concerned which were rejected and immediately thereafter he approached the Tribunal in the year 2009. 10. The respondent participated in the recruitment test for appointment as Junior Assistant in the office of Director General of Police, Orissa on 21.08.1984. He was selected and appointed as a Junior Assistant on Ad-hoc basis on 29.09.984. He was discharged from service with effect from 06.12.1986, aggrieved by which he filed O.A. No.246 of 1996 in the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the continuance of the Respondent till appointments were made on a regular basis. The said order of the Tribunal was affirmed by this Court. The respondent was permitted to continue on Ad- hoc basis till 16.08.1988 when his services were terminated. Thereafter, the respondent was not successful in his attempts before the Tribunal and the High Court as the cases filed by him were dismissed. He submitted a representation to the appellant on 16.03.2009 seeking extension of the benefit of relaxation from securing the minimum marks which was extended to other similarly situated persons. The Tribunal refused to grant relief to the respondent in view of his ineligibility. There is no dispute that the respondent is not eligible for seeking appointment to the post of Junior Assistant as he did not secure the minimum required 33% in general knowledge. The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent that he is entitled for appointment only on the ground of discrimination does not commend acceptance. The High Court ought not to have directed the appointment of the first respondent as Junior Assistant on the ground that some other persons who were not eligible were appointed in the year 1991. In view of the passage of a long time after the recruitment test was conducted in the year 1984, any direction in favour of the first respondent cannot be sustained. In view of the passage of a long time after the recruitment test was conducted in the year 1984, any direction in favour of the first respondent cannot be sustained. He is not eligible and any such direction would be contrary to law. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. 12. No orders are called for in the application(s) for intervention/ impleadment, the same is/are accordingly disposed of.