The employee should have completed 33 years of qualifying service in order to be eligible for seeking voluntary retirement under the scheme The ward of the employee would be considered for employment only in the lowest recruitment grade of the category form which the employee sought retirement, depending upon eligibility and suitability but not in any other category Applications for retirement under the scheme would be taken once a year with the cut-off date for reckoning the eligibility of the employees being 30th June while the last date for submission of requests would be 31st July. The eligibility criteria such as age limit and educational qualifications will be determined with reference to the cut-off date The discretion to consider the request for retirement will vest with the administration depending on the shortage of staff physical fitness and suitability of the ward in the category of Driver Gang as the case may be; Persons who had completed 33 years of service and fell within the age group of 55-57 would be considered in the first phase followed by those between the age group of 53-55 years Criteria for the eligibility of wards would be as prescribed for direct recruitment and The request of the employee for retirement would be considered only if the ward is considered suitable for appointment in all aspects including medical fitness. The Railway Board also reiterated that retirement of an employee would be considered only if a ward is found suitable in all aspects. It was envisaged that the retirement of the employee and appointment of the ward should take place simultaneously. The High Court while dismissing the writ petition the railway authorities to revisit its validity and sustainability keeping in view the principles of equal opportunity and elimination of monopoly in holding public employment before making any appointment under The third application was submitted on 18 April 2015, seeking reconsideration of the rejection of the first application on the ground that the date of birth in the first application had been recorded. The respondent challenged the judgment of the Tribunal under Article 226 of the Constitution.