JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.L.L.2/25643/13, dated 23.06.2014 and to quash the same with consequential direction to promote the petitioner as Forest Watcher with effect from the date of his junior's promotion with all consequential benefits.) 1. The order impugned dated 23.06.2014, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for promotion to the post of Forest Watcher with effect from the date of his junior's promotion with all consequential benefits is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Plot Watcher on daily wages basis on 01.041982. Subsequently, his appointment was converted as Social Forestry Worker with effect from 19.11.1982 by the Forest Officer, Social Forestry Range, Kallakurichi. The petitioner was working more than 3 decades and his services are not regularised. 3. As per the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules, Rule No.5, the requisite qualification for the appointment to the post of Forest Watcher is, (1) Ability to read and write tamil (2) 163 cm of height and (3) Chest measurement ranging from 79 to 85 cm. 4. The Plot Watcher and Social Forestery Workers, who have complied with the above qualifications under the Rules were appointed as Forest Watcher on regular basis. The petitioner was also participated and his case was rejected on the ground that his height was 162 cm. The prescribed height is 163 cm. During the relevant point of time, when the petitioner participated in the selection, physical measurement test was conducted and the candidature of the writ petitioner was rejected. Thus, the reason for rejection cannot be construed as erroneous. 5. When the petitioner did not possess the requisite physical standards as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Forest Subordinate Service Rules, the decision taken by the authorities are in consonance with the rules and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief. That apart, even at the time of filing the writ petition, the petitioner was aged about 56 years and now he would age around 64 years. This being the factum, there is no point in considering the case of the writ petitioners for grant of relief. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.