(1.) W. P. NOS. 31097, 36113 and 37531/2005 are filed seeking for the relief of issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the notification No. Nil dated 29. 8. 2005 issued by the fourth respondent, the Assistant Director, District Employment Office, Salem District, while W. P. No. 33427/2005 is filed to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the age limit as 45 years for the post of conductor at par with that of the post of Driver.
(2.) AS seen from the notification, which is impugned in these writ petitions, dated 29. 8. 2005, the fourth respondent informed the general public in order to sponsor the names of the persons, who are having qualification for the post of conductors and drivers, to be appointed as daily wage earners in the State owned Transport Corporation. In that notice, the qualification prescribed for the appointment of driver as well as the conductor in the respondents Corporation, has been stated. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petitions is that the age qualification for the post of drivers was fixed as 40 years. Insofar as the conductors are concerned, the age limit has been fixed as 30 years, which is impermissible, and even for the conductors also, the age limit has to be fixed as 40 years on par with the drivers.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no rationale for fixing the age limit as 40 years for drivers and 30 years for the conductors, and it should be equal for both the posts. I am not able to countenance the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The prescription of the qualification of a particular post is purely within the domain of the respondents and not for this Court. Even otherwise, the two posts which are referred to in the notice, are not similar posts. The work of the one post is totally different from the work of the other post. The petitioners cannot have a legal right to approach this Court with the prayer as stated above.