A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) IN the instant case non-interference by Court means play safe and avoidance of possible disastrous consequences. On the other hand interference may help some individuals but it is fraught with danger leading to disastrous consequences for the unwary passengers of public vehicles and for other members of the public. Thus there are two alternatives between which the Court has to make its choice. Let us examine the facts and the question. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was formerly employed as driver by a private operator. With the nationalisation of transport operation his services were transferred to respondent-Corporation i. e. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. The respondent-Corporation has issued a circular dated 20/04/1971 wherein it is provided that employees who were formerly serving with private operators and who have been absorbed by the respondent-Corporation will be continued in service upto the ago of 60 years. However the benefit of continuation in service upto the age of 60 years has not been extended to drivers. Hence the legality and validity of the circular is challenged on the ground that drivers have been treated with hostile discrimination inasmuch as though they ate similarly situated like other employees they have been deprived of the benefits of continuing in service upto the age of 60 years. ( 3 ) THE contention raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted Complete physical fitness ever agile and alert mind with capacity to maintain sustained concentration are the pre-requisites of a driver operating a public passenger vehicle. If the appropriate executive authority in exercise of its administrative power which is normally backed by its experience and wisdom has decided that in case of drivers the superannuation age should be 58 years and not 60 years it would not be proper for this Court to sit in appeal over its judgment and substitute the opinion of the Court as regards the suitability of drivers being continued in service even after the age of 58 years. Bc it noted that the duties to be Perfomed by drivers though appear to be simple are very risky. Slackness even for a moment slightest slip and detraction even for a split second on the part of a driver of a public passenger vehicle is likely to be dangerous to lives of many ordinary people. All the aforesaid lapses are likely to develop with the advancement of age. Slackness even for a moment slightest slip and detraction even for a split second on the part of a driver of a public passenger vehicle is likely to be dangerous to lives of many ordinary people. All the aforesaid lapses are likely to develop with the advancement of age. Therefore if the executive authorities have in their wisdom taken the decision to retire drivers at the age of 58 years and not to continue them in service beyond that age by no stretch of reasoning it can be said that the authorities have acted with hostile discrimination against the drivers. ( 4 ) THE duties to be performed by drivers are certainly not similar to that of other employees like clerks cleaners mechanics and foreman. A clerk may sleep While on duty. He would not endanger the life of others. A cleaner or mechanic can afford to be lethargic and may have a blissful relapse in inertia while on duty not only for a moment or two but some times even for hours together. At the most (probably rarely) they may be visited with some minor penalty. But in case of drivers as stated hereinabove even a momentary lapse may lead to disastrous consequences to many human lives. Therefore classification of drivers as forming separate class from otter employees situated similarly in other respects is rational and it has nexus with the object to be achieved. The object could be faultless and efficient functioning of the transport service with least possible danger to human lives and property. Thus formation of drivers as separate class by themselves is just and proper and Dot at all discriminatory as alleged. Therefor challenge to the aforesaid circular on the ground of hostile discrimination has no merits and the same is rejected. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon two instance wherein this High Court made recommendation in the State Road Transport Corporation Authority and requested that in those particular cases the age of superannuation be extended. These cases cannot be treated as precedents. In the facts and circumstances of those cases the Court might have thought it fit to make such recommendation. In the instant case also despite rejection of the petition if the respondentauthority thinks fit to grant extension in service to the petitioner. Driver this Court will have no objection. In fact there is on such restriction. In the facts and circumstances of those cases the Court might have thought it fit to make such recommendation. In the instant case also despite rejection of the petition if the respondentauthority thinks fit to grant extension in service to the petitioner. Driver this Court will have no objection. In fact there is on such restriction. It in always for the concerned administrative authority to consider the case of extension of a particular employee. ( 6 ) THERE is no substance in the petition. Hence rejected. Notice discharged. Ad interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. Rule discharged. .