Judgment :- 1. This order shall dispose of W.P.No.6844 and 6845 of 2007 as the common question of fact and law are involved in these two writ petitions. 2. For the sake of brevity, the facts have been taken from W.P.No.6844 of 2007. 3. The petitioners have approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Village Administrative Officer in Karur District. 4. The petitioner was appointed as Karnam and continued in service on the post of part time Village Officer namely, Village Karnam. The post of Village Karnam, Head Man were abolished vide ordinance of the Government with effect from 14.11.1980. 5. The ordinance to abolish the post was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court where an undertaking was given by the Government, that all the part time Village Officers will be accommodated in the newly created Village Administrative Officer post, if they are otherwise qualified. The petitioner was the one among the candidates who lost the job in view of the ordinance passed by the Government. 6. The case of the petitioner is that he was not considered for appointment, as he did not have the qualification of S.S.L.C. which was the minimum qualification prescribed for the post. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that the petitioners appeared in old S.S.L.C. (11 years), but failed in Class XI, after clearing Class X, therefore, they were eligible for appointment. 8. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the amended rules which stipulates that person who passed 10th Standard in old S.S.L.C. Course is eligible for appointment. 9. The writ petition as framed is not competent, as the petitioner has not challenged the selection in which the petitioners were wrongly rejected, nor the petitioners have challenged the order of rejection. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot issue direction for appointment, but can only, issue direction for consideration for appointment to the post if so eligible, that too when posts are filled up. In absence of any material showing that process of recruitment is going on and the case of the petitioner is being wrongly ignored, the prayer cannot be accepted. In absence of any material showing that process of recruitment is going on and the case of the petitioner is being wrongly ignored, the prayer cannot be accepted. As noticed above, the petitioners have not challenged the order rejecting the claim of the petitioners for appointment by treating them to be unqualified. No merit. Dismissed. No costs.