ORDER : The above writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the order passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.B2/1166/2007, dated 23.02.2010 and the consequential order passed in Na.Ka.No.B2/3146/2010, dated 26.03.2010 and quash the same and to direct the second respondent to appoint the petitioner in the post of Village Assistant in Kallarathinipatti Village. 2. The petitioner's case is that on 06.01.2010, a paper publication was made calling for applications from eligible candidates for the post of Village Assistant at Kallarathinipatti Village in Sivagangai District. Pursuant to this, the petitioner's name was sponsored through the employment exchange and she was called for an interview to appear on 29.01.2010. According to the petitioner, she was the only person to attend the interview for the said post before the third respondent. But, on 23.02.2010, the third respondent has appointed the fourth respondent as Village Assistant in Kallarathinipatti Village. It was the further case of the petitioner that she approached the third respondent by way of a representation relating to her non-appointment and that the third respondent has replied that the petitioner could not be appointed as the appointment of the petitioner, being a female candidate, would not be appropriate having regard to the law and order problem in the said village. 3. Sum and substance, the points raised by the petitioner counsel Mr. C. Vakeeswaran are three fold. (a) Rejection of the petitioner's candidature on the sole ground that she is a female is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (Gender discrimination). (b) The fourth respondent does not belong to Kallarathinipatti Village and hence, he cannot be appointed; and (c) The third respondent has no power to fill up the vacancy in the post of Village Assistant as the second respondent District Collector is the only authority to appoint Village Assistants. 4. The respondents 3 and 4 have filed independent counter affidavit. The fourth respondent denied the factual allegation that he is not residing in a nearby village to make him eligible to be considered for the post in question. It is the specific case of the fourth respondent that he also received a call letter dated 18.01.2010 and attended the interview on 27.01.2010. The fourth respondent denied the factual allegation that he is not residing in a nearby village to make him eligible to be considered for the post in question. It is the specific case of the fourth respondent that he also received a call letter dated 18.01.2010 and attended the interview on 27.01.2010. The fourth respondent claimed that he got his name registered in the employment exchange on 04.06.1987 and that the date of registration of the petitioner in the employment exchange was on 07.06.1994. In view of the seniority in the registration, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent contended that the appointment of the fourth respondent is perfectly valid as his educational qualification and other facts make him more suitable to the post than the petitioner. The fourth respondent also mentioned about the appointment of twelve female Village Assistants in Sivagangai Taluk alone in response to the contention of the petitioner that she had been discriminated on the ground of sex. 5. The third respondent inter alia pointed out that both the petitioner and the fourth respondent do not belong to Kallarathinipatti Village. After referring the manner in which the post of Village Assistant is filled up, the third respondent contended that three candidates from among the list of five candidates sponsored by employment exchange attended the interview and that the fourth respondent was found more suitable than the petitioner, having regard to the law and order problem as well as requirement of the Village Assistant in that village to patrol lengthy railway lines. The third respondent has admitted the fact that the fourth respondent was preferred to the petitioner only because of the fact that the petitioner is a female candidate and that the appointment of a female candidate as a Village Assistant may not be appropriate having regard to the law and order problem and other peculiar factors which are relevant in this case. 6. Heard Mr. C. Vakeeswaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. S. Visvalingam, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. 7. Though the gender discrimination has been raised as an issue in this case, the third respondent has given a specific reason for preferring the fourth respondent than the petitioner having regard to the peculiar factual situation. S. Visvalingam, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. 7. Though the gender discrimination has been raised as an issue in this case, the third respondent has given a specific reason for preferring the fourth respondent than the petitioner having regard to the peculiar factual situation. The stand taken by the third respondent cannot be rejected merely because some favour has been shown to the fourth respondent based on the fact that he is a male candidate. Every employer is recognised to have some discretion in the matter of employment. Even in a case of appointment by the Government, it is always permissible for considering some factors which are germane and serve some public purpose, in the decision making process. In the present case, the third respondent has considered the merits of the candidates and the local conditions and factors which are peculiar to a particular village. No mala fide is alleged by the petitioner against the third respondent. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the decision of the third respondent is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, particularly, on the ground of gender discrimination. 8. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner got her name registered in the employment exchange only on 07.06.1994, i.e., seven years after the registration of the fourth respondent's name in the employment exchange. The petitioner is aged only 24 years and the fourth respondent is nearly 13 years older than the petitioner. Having regard to the seniority of the fourth respondent and the fact that the fourth respondent may not get further chance before he crosses the age limit, this Court is also inclined to sustain the order of the third respondent in appointing the fourth respondent as Village Assistant. Accordingly, the order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The third point that was raised by the petitioner in the affidavit with regard to the jurisdiction of the third respondent to fill up the vacancy in the post of Village Assistant is not stressed during the argument. The third respondent in his counter affidavit has specifically pointed out that he is the competent authority to appoint Village Assistants in the Taluk by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.521, Revenue (Ser. VII(2)) Department, dated 17.06.1998 and as per G.O.Ms.No.787, Revenue (Service 7(1)) Department, dated 06.12.2006. 9. The third respondent in his counter affidavit has specifically pointed out that he is the competent authority to appoint Village Assistants in the Taluk by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.521, Revenue (Ser. VII(2)) Department, dated 17.06.1998 and as per G.O.Ms.No.787, Revenue (Service 7(1)) Department, dated 06.12.2006. 9. Though the fourth respondent has also questioned the eligibility of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has shifted her residence to her husband's place which is far away and that her present place of residence make her ineligible to seek appointment as Village Assistant at Kallarathinipatti Village, in view of the conclusion reached by this Court sustaining the appointment of the fourth respondent as Village Assistant at Kallarathinipatti Village, this Court does not consider it necessary to decide. 10. For the reasons stated above, the order passed by the third respondent does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and hence, this Writ Petition deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.