age limit fixed as per Ext.P1 notification and thus became ineligible to apply pursuant to Ext.P1 application. In Ext.P3 judgment, the representation submitted by the petitioner was only directed to be considered and after such consideration it was rejected as per Ext.P4 order. No sustainable grounds have been raised in the writ petition warranting interference with the said order passed in Ext.P4. Ext.P5 is only a natural consequence of her being ineligible in terms of Ext.P1 notification. Thus there is no reason to interfere with Exts.P4 and P5. No legal right of the petitioner was infringed as per Exts.P4 and P5. That apart, no specific provision has been brought to my attention to enable this court to command the first respondent to review Ext.P4 order. In the absence of such power specifically conferred, a direction cannot be issued to first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 Review Petition as well. That apart, according to me, it will be a futile exercise to issue any such order as the respondents have already initiated selection proceedings as per Ext.P1 and have proceeded further with the said selection process. Even in the case of any future amendment with respect to the provisions regarding the qualification of age it
