JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. In an era and time when women seek to assert themselves and to tread into bastions long reserved for men, we see this appeal, wherein the appellants who are all women, challenging orders of the KSRTC to engage them as bus conductors on the assertion that they are entitled to other “light duties”. 2. The job of bus conductors and such other analogous posts have been in the past sex-labelled as being suitable only for men and the transport industry as a whole has long been considered an exclusive men-working-world till recently. Women were kept away from these sectors in the past but today they are entering it, especially as conductors in large numbers. 3. It is, therefore, that we find the assertion of the appellants herein that the KSRTC be directed to retain them in “light duty posts” of clerks and not to be assigned the duties of conductors slightly intriguing. 4. We will first chronicle the most essential facts, before we express our opinion on the contentions raised herein. 5. Appellants are the writ petitioners in the three writ petitions involved in these appeals. They are impugning the judgment of the learned single judge dismissing their writ petitions. 6. The appellants claim that they are working as Clerks in the Ticket and Cash sections in certain depots under the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation ['KSRTC' for short]. Even though they say that they are working as Clerks at present, they unhesitatingly concede that they were originally appointed as conductors under a dying-in-harness scheme. 7. According to appellants, they were, at the time when they were recruited as conductors, qualified to be appointed as Clerks but that on account of an alleged ban of recruitment by the KSRTC at the relevant time, they were offered not the posts of clerks but that of conductors, which they admit they accepted without demur. The appellants further say that after they joined the services of the KSRTC as conductors, they applied for a temporary arrangement to post them as clerks in the ministerial section for short periods, as is permitted by the KSRTC in exigencies of service. They say that they were thus appointed as Clerks to work at the Ticket and Cash Counter for three months initially, which thereafter was extended for further periods. 8. They say that they were thus appointed as Clerks to work at the Ticket and Cash Counter for three months initially, which thereafter was extended for further periods. 8. The appellants assert that while so, the Government of Kerala brought out a policy of permitting category change from among the qualified persons and that on such basis, the KSRTC issued a memorandum, bearing No. P.L.1/17448/09, dated 19.04.2010, under which, the graduate conductors were allowed to apply and enjoy category change as clerks. The reason why this memorandum confined this benefits to graduates alone was because, in the year 2010, the minimum qualification to the post of clerks was enhanced to graduation and the appellants concede before us unequivocally that none of them are graduates and they are only SSLC qualified, which was all that was required at the time when they were initially recruited. 9. When the afore mentioned memorandum was issued by the KSRTC, offering the benefits of category change to the graduates in service, the appellants appear to have made representation seeking similar benefits. On the accusation that such requests were not being considered, two among the appellants herein approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.17673 of 2010, which was disposed of directing the Chairman and Managing Director of the KSRTC, to consider and pass order on the requests of the petitioners therein. 10. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the Chairman and Managing Director issued an order, bearing No. PL.15/014994/2010, dated 02.09.2010, however, denying the requests of the appellants holding that the dying-in-harness scheme, under which they were appointed, was only intended to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee and that since the appellants had accepted the appointment of the conductors without demur, they cannot now ask for a category change. The order of the Chairman and Managing Director further says that since the appellants are not graduates at the time of their appointment and since no other person, who is not a graduate, had been granted category change by modifying the minimum qualification, it was not possible to accede to the request now made by the appellants. 11. The order of the Chairman and Managing Director further says that since the appellants are not graduates at the time of their appointment and since no other person, who is not a graduate, had been granted category change by modifying the minimum qualification, it was not possible to accede to the request now made by the appellants. 11. The appellants say that since this order of the Managing Director was thus to their detriment with respect to their request for category change to the post of Clerks, they approached the KSRTC subsequently requesting that the temporary arrangement, under which they were working as clerks, be allowed to continue, to which, they say, the Corporation issued an order bearing No. P.L.15/029031/2011, dated 05.01.2012, whereunder several persons, including the appellants, were allowed to work as clerks on temporary basis but with a caveat that they would not obtain any benefits under the extant Grade Promotion Policy. As per the appellants, even though this order denied them benefits under the Grade Promotion Order, they further represented to the KSRTC and that another order, bearing No. P.L.15/029031/2011, dated 01.02.2012, was issued, wherein, according to them, their grievance was accepted by the KSRTC and they were allowed to continue as Clerks relaxing the Grade Promotion Rules, particularly, Rule 9C thereof, the effect of which was that they were sanctioned further promotions, even when they continued on such temporary arrangements. 12. On the afore narration of facts, the appellants assert that even the KSRTC has allowed them to continue as clerks for more than 10 years continuously; that this virtually amounts to a category change and therefore, that their position cannot now be altered. 13. We notice that the proximate cause for the appellants to approach this Court by filing these writ petitions was that the KSRTC, thereafter, issued an Order bearing No.045/CMD/2018, dated 21.04.2018, directing that all personnel be revered to their original duties, exigently to mean that the appellants would stand reverted to their original duties as conductors and that they will not be further allowed to continue as clerks. It was this order that has been impugned by the appellants in the various writ petitions. 14. It was this order that has been impugned by the appellants in the various writ petitions. 14. The learned Single Judge who considered the writ petitions found that since the appellants concede that they were originally appointed as conductors and that they were working as clerks only on a work arrangement basis, on the strength of the afore mentioned orders, they would not get any indefeasible right to continue in such work arrangement, in the absence of any vested right being even claimed or demonstrated by them for such purpose. It is on such ratiocination that the learned single Judge dismissed all these writ petitions. 15. The appellants impugn the judgments of the learned Single Judge on the ground that even though they have no vested or statutory right to claim a temporary arrangement, their entitlement to claim category change stands crystallised on the strength of the afore mentioned orders of the KSRTC and on account of the undisputed factum of they having worked as clerks uninterruptedly for more than a decade now. 16. We have heard Sri. K.P. Rajeevan, Sri. Viju Abraham and Sri. P.U. Shailajan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A. No.1526, 1562 and 1596 respectively; Sri. Poulose C. Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC; and Sri. P.N. Santhosh, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State. 17. The foremost question that poses for our consideration in these appeals is whether the appellants can claim any right, be that vested or otherwise, for category change. The admitted fact is that they were appointed as conductors in the service of the KSRTC before the year 2010 and that they are not graduates. True, at the time when they were appointed as conductors, the qualification for being appointed as Clerks was only SSLC. However, in the year 2010 the qualifications were amended and, therefore, a person, who aspired for appointed as a clerk thereafter ought to have possessed graduation. Pertinently, none of the appellants have a claim that they are graduates even as of now and there, it becomes axiomatically evident, particularly, in view of the statutory Rules relating to the mandatory obtainment of concurrence of the Public Service Commission in these matters, that they would not obtain any right either to be appointed as a Clerk or for a category change to the post of Clerk. 18. 18. Once we conclude so, the only surviving question is whether the temporary arrangement under which they were working as clerks on the support of the aforesaid orders of the KSRTC can obtain to them the locus to assert that such arrangement cannot be modified in future by the KSRTC. 19. As we have already seen above, the appellants were allowed to work as Clerks, which are "light duty posts", on account of certain specific reasons that were valid at the time when the orders permitting them to so work were issued but the continuance of the appellants in such posts was indubitably only under the discretion of the KSRTC. The appellants, therefore, cannot arrogate to themselves an inviolable right to continue in such temporary arrangement because it was merely at the pleasure of the KSRTC that they were allowed to continue in such arrangement. Therefore, when the KSRTC felt, as a matter of policy and so as to sustain the imperative quality of the services offered to its beneficiaries, the common citizen, that the posts and duties of conductors are now indispensable for the smooth conduct of trips, the posts of clerks being not so unexpendable, we cannot find any reason to intervene by restraining the KSRTC from reverting the appellants to their parent posts. This is more so because the decision of the KSRTC to revert the appellants does not appear to be vitiated by malafides nor do the appellants have any such case and such decisions, being within the realm of policy matters, take it be beyond the pale of our consideration while we act under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. In the final summation, we have no reason to find the conclusions and holdings of the learned Single Judge to be, in any manner, beyond the jurisdiction vested in the Court or to be vitiated in any form and therefore, we feel fully justified, to dismiss these appeals, thus confirming the judgments of the learned single Judge impugned herein. 21. After we dictated this judgment, Sri. K.P. Rajeevan and Sri. Viju Abraham, the learned counsel for the appellants sought our indulgence to direct the KSRTC to retain their clients, even though our view on law is as afore recorded, we notice that some of the appellants on the ground that they are physically unable, due to ailments and age, to work as conductors. K.P. Rajeevan and Sri. Viju Abraham, the learned counsel for the appellants sought our indulgence to direct the KSRTC to retain their clients, even though our view on law is as afore recorded, we notice that some of the appellants on the ground that they are physically unable, due to ailments and age, to work as conductors. We are afraid, this is not an issue that can be considered by us in these appeals, but we leave liberty to the individual appellants to approach the competent authority of the KSRTC with suitable representations, if they are so desirous, which may be considered by the KSRTC in terms of law. These appeals are thus disposed of.