As per case facts, the petitioners challenged a Tribunal order that directed them to consider respondents for Group 'D' posts. Respondents, who applied under OBC and ST categories respectively for ... different notifications, did not meet the cut-off marks for selection, and no vacancies remained. The petitioners also argued the applications were time-barred. The Tribunal, without addressing limitation, directed appointment based on an inapplicable notification and judgment. The question arose whether the Tribunal erred in directing consideration for appointment when respondents failed to meet selection criteria, posts were filled, and applications were delayed. Finally, the High Court held that the Tribunal erred as respondents did not secure minimum marks, all posts were filled, and the relied-upon judgments were inapplicable. The court set aside the Tribunal's order, confirming respondents' claims do not survive.