Judgment :- 1. These writ petitions are filed challenging the notification issued by the third respondent dated 28.11.2014 in Notification No.21/14 inviting application only from women candidates for direct recruitment to the post of Child Development Project Officer. 2. The main grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that the respondents cannot restrict the above recruitment to be made only from and among women candidates without permitting the male candidates also to take part. Therefore, the impugned notification has been challenged on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent, wherein it is stated that the impugned notification was issued as per G.O.Ms.No.1251 dated 24.07.1987, wherein Rules were framed in respect of the Tamil Nadu General Services, wherein Rule 6 contemplates women alone shall be eligible for the post of District Social Welfare Officer, Child Development Project Officer, Taluk Project Nutrition Officer and Superintendent Sheltered Workshop for the blind. Therefore, it is contended that the Notification issued as per the above said Rules cannot be found fault with, since the petitioners have not questioned the said Rule. 4. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 5. In these cases, the petitioners are aggrieved against the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission dated 28.11.2014 only on the ground that such recruitment notification was confined only in respect of women candidates, without allowing male candidates also take part. Admittedly, the petitioners are questioning only the impugned Notification and not questioning the relevant Rule issued under G.O.No.1251 of Social Welfare Department dated 24.07.1987, wherein, Rule 6 reads as follows: “6. Sex – Women alone shall be eligible for appointment to the post of District Social Welfare Officer, Child Development Project Officer, Taluk Project Nutrition Officer and Superintendent Sheltered Workshop for the Blind.” 6. It is not in dispute that the impugned notification issued by the third respondent was in accordance with the above said Rules. When that being the factual position and when the said Rules specifically contemplates that women candidates alone are eligible for appointment to the post of Child Development Project Officer, the petitioners cannot find fault with the impugned notification issued by the third respondent calling upon applications only from the women candidates. When that being the factual position and when the said Rules specifically contemplates that women candidates alone are eligible for appointment to the post of Child Development Project Officer, the petitioners cannot find fault with the impugned notification issued by the third respondent calling upon applications only from the women candidates. So long as the said Rule is in force, the petitioners cannot raise the ground of equality. Therefore, I find no merits to interfere with the impugned notification. Accordingly, these writ petitions fails and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.