The main legal point established is that consultation with the PSC is mandatory for matters relating to the recruitment of officers and servants of the Corporation, and the Corporation is ordered to commence and complete the consultation process.

1. These writ petitions relate to the validity of "The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (Recruitment of Assistant Transport Officers/Administrative Officers/Depot Engineers) Regulations, 2003", hereinafter, the '2003 Regulations', issued by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, the 'Corporation' for short, constituted under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the 'RTC Act'. Among the captioned matters, W.P(C).118/09 is filed seeking a direction to carry on with and conclude the selection process commenced in terms of those Regulations in so far as it relates to the 15% quota earmarked for internal recruitment from the Corporation employees, to the posts of Assistant Transport Officers. Among others, W.P(C). Nos.12938/06 and 37142/08 are filed challenging the prescription of age limit of 40 years for recruitment of Assistant Transport Officers towards that 15% by internal recruitment. All the other writ petitions are filed by persons who can aspire for appointment as Assistant Transport Officers by promotion.

2. With the materials on record, including the pleadings of the Kerala Public Service Commission, hereinafter, the 'PSC' for short, I have heard learned counsel for parties in these matters.

3. The challenge to the 2003 Regulations is on different grounds. Firstly, it is contended that those regulations have been made without the previous sanction of the State Government in terms of Section 45(1) of the RTC Act as it then stood. It is next contended that the PSC was not consulted though that was a mandatory requirement. Thirdly, it is contended that though, at that point of time, the issuance of notification and its publication in the official gazette were not provided for, the regulations cannot be made operational without them being communicated, at least by circulars, to the employees of the Corporation. It is further contended that the prescriptions made in the 2003 Regulations are arbitrary and amount to hostile discrimination of personnel who, as part of their legitimate expectations, are awaiting avenues of promotion in the regular stream. It is also pointed out that the prescription of qualification has been so done that it is left to be vague to provide fair room for colourable exercise of authority in making the selection. The prescription of educational qualification, without even stating that the qualification prescribed should be from recognised university is criticized as sufficient to show that the intentions behind the 2003 Regulations are oblique. In the two writ petitions challenging the prescription of 40 years as the outer age limit for internal recruitment from the employees of the Corporation, it is contended that such a prescription is irrational and no object could be legitimately treated as sought to be achieved by such a prescription.

4. In supporting the 2003 Regulations, the arguments advanced are that consultation with the PSC is not mandatory, but only directory, as would be discernible from a consideration of the consultative process envisaged by Article 320 of the Constitution of India and so is the manner in which Section 3 of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Additional Functions as respects the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation) Act, 1970, hereinafter, the Additional Functions Act, is couched. It is further argued that the object sought to be achieved by making a provision for internal recruitment is to provide a fast track stream to bring up competent, efficient and competitive youngsters to the higher cadre in a manner conducive to boost the growth of the establishment. It is also

argued that consultation may not be necessary since the field occupied by the RTC Act is not one, over which, the State Legislature could have transgressed and made the Additional Functions Act. This submission is made notwithstanding that the Additional Functions Act is not challenged in these writ petitions. It is also argue