Judgment :- 1. We have come to the conclusion that this case does not demand any writ or direction under Art.226 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner was appointed to officiate as a Village Assistant (Menon) in the Talappilli Taluk on 4th January 1949. After the termination of the war, permanent officers who were doing other duty during the emergency, returned to their original posts and as a result the petitioner was retrenched on 9th May 1953. The Order (No. A.2-5312/53, dated 9th May 1953), reads as follows: W. Govindankutty Nair, Village Assistant, in Talappilly Taluk to be thrown out." The petitioner's complaint is that the retrenchment was not with due regard to seniority and that he was sent away while persons junior to him in service were retained. 3. If seniority is calculated on the basis of the Taluk in which the petitioner was working there was one person who had lesser service as can be seen from Ext. XIII, a statement filed by the State. 24 persons are mentioned in the statement, No. 23 being the petitioner and No. 24, one C.C. Puthenkayi who was recruited some two months after the petitioner, on 4th March 1949. The petitioner's qualifications according to Ext. XIII are "I Form and Village Officer's Manual" and of Puthenkayi "S.S.L.C. course and Survey Training course". 4. According to the State, Survey Training is an essential requisite for a Village Assistant and that was the reason why they preferred Puthenkayi to the petitioner at the time of retrenchment. There is an emphasis on Survey Training as a requisite qualification both in the Standing Orders and in Ext. IX, the proceedings of Government, dated 10th March 1949. As pointed out in Balbirsingh Marwra v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1955 Nagpur 289), just as in the case of initial appointments so also for the purposes of retrenchment, a certain amount of selection and gradation is inevitable and the selection of persons for retrenchment being principally a subjective matter for the authorities concerned, it cannot be considered as justiciable in the absence of an infringement of constitutional or legal rights. We are unable to see any such violation in this case and the petition has hence to be dismissed. 5. We are unable to see any such violation in this case and the petition has hence to be dismissed. 5. According to the petitioner, the seniority should have been calculated not on the basis of the Taluk in which he was serving though that was the practice that was being adopted at the time of the retrenchment but on the basis of the District of which the Taluk formed a part. Calculated on the basis of seniority in the District, we find from Ext. XIV, another statement filed by the State, that there were six persons (including Puthenkayi) who were junior to the petitioner on the date of retrenchment (9th May 1953). They are Nos. 186 to 191 of Ext. XIV. Of these, the Educational qualification of No. 186 is "III Form, Village Officer's Manual and Survey Training", of No. 187 W Form, Survey Training and Village Officer's Manual", of No. 188 "S.S.L.C. course, Survey Training course, and Village Officer's Manual", of No. 189 "S.S.L.C. and Survey and Levelling", of No. 190 (Puthenkayi) "S.S.L.C. course and Survey Training course" and of No. 191 "III Form, Village Officer's Manual and Survey Training". 6. It is clear from the qualifications mentioned that all the six persons junior to the petitioner on the basis of District seniority possessed higher qualifications and that all of them had familiarity with Survey work. In these circumstances, we are certainly not prepared to say that the retrenchment of the petitioner and the retention of Nos. 186 to 191 even though they were junior to him in service in the District concerned was incorrect and cannot be sustained. 7. It follows that the petition has to be dismissed, and it is hereby dismissed; but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs.