JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order of the second respondent in “TAMIL” dated 11.06.2008 and quash the same and directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Conductor in the second respondent Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Trichy. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:- The petitioner herein applied for the Conductor licence before the Assistant Licensing Authority, Namakkal. The Licensing Authority has issued Conductor Licence to the petitioner on 17.03.1993. The petitioner had obtained the first aid certificate at Musir vide No. SFA 7761343 on 19.04.2005. The petitioner had worked at Puranagar Branch from 24.05.1994 to 30.06.1994 and during the strike period the petitioner had also worked in the Trichy Puranagar Branch in the year 2001. After that the petitioner worked from 30.08.2005 to 20.09.2005 at Trichy Puranagar Branch with an assurance that his application for the post of Conductor will be considered during fresh appointment. The petitioner had registered his name before the Employment Exchange, Trichy. Thereafter, the petitioner received a communication from the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam, dated 05.03.2007 calling him to attend the interview for the post of Conductor on the strength of the recommendation list forwarded by the District Employment Office, Trichy. The petitioner attended the interview and submitted his application to the second respondent on 16.03.2007. However, no reply was given to the petitioner either in writing or oral. The petitioner received a communication, through Right to Information Act, stating that his appointment for the post of Conductor is not considered on the ground that he is not having physical fitness. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the petitioner worked as Conductor in the Karur Puranagar Branch and Trichy Puranagar Branch for a short period. Further, the petitioner's name was also recommended by the District Employment Office, Trichy, only after considering the petitioner's Bio-data as well as seniority. While so, the respondent authority ought to have considered the petitioner's application. On the contrary, they have rejected the same by stating that the petitioner is not having physical fitness. Further, the petitioner's name was also recommended by the District Employment Office, Trichy, only after considering the petitioner's Bio-data as well as seniority. While so, the respondent authority ought to have considered the petitioner's application. On the contrary, they have rejected the same by stating that the petitioner is not having physical fitness. Therefore, he prays before this Court that considering the age and experience of the petitioner, a direction can be given to the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Conductor. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents filed a detailed counter and submitted that the interview was conducted for the post of Conductor on 16.03.2007 and the petitioner also participated in the interview. Since the petitioner was not having physical fitness, he was not found eligible for the post of Conductor. Hence, the Selection Committee declared that the petitioner is not eligible for the post of Conductor. Further, at no point of time assurance was given by the respondents to the petitioner that his name would be considered for appointment to the post of Conductor. Furthermore the petitioner has not acquired the required qualification for the post of Conductor. Moreover, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches, since for the interview conducted on 16.03.2007, the petitioner has filed the writ petition in the year 2009 i.e. after a period of two years and the delay has not been properly explained by the petitioner. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials carefully available on record. 6. The selection committee after conducting the interview has declared that the petitioner is not eligible to the post of conductor. In the counter affidavit the respondents at paragraph 4 have categorically denied that the petitioner is having the required qualification, for which there is no reply on the part of the writ petitioner as to whether he is having required qualification to hold the post of Conductor. The selection of candidature to the post of Conductor is an administrative process on the part of Selection Committee unless there is allegation of malafide on the part of the Selection Committee, this Court normally would not interfere in the selection process. The selection of candidature to the post of Conductor is an administrative process on the part of Selection Committee unless there is allegation of malafide on the part of the Selection Committee, this Court normally would not interfere in the selection process. Moreover, nearly after 2 years from the date of selection, the petitioner has filed this writ petition and the petitioner did not explain the reason for the delay. Hence, at this distant point of time, it is not appropriate to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the Court is of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.