Opinion

Plaintiff brought an action for declaratory relief and for mandate to determine that he is a permanent deputy sheriff of defendant county and an ex-officio marshal of the San Luis Obispo County *96 Municipal Court. The trial court entered judgment against him and he has appealed; we affirm.

The trial court made elaborate findings of fact. We summarize the material findings as follows:

Plaintiff contends that, under section 71092 of the Government Code, he was automatically “blanketed” into a permanent position as a deputy marshal of the new municipal court and that, under Valentine v. County of Contra Costa (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 515 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 500 ], it is immaterial whether he had worked full or part-time as a deputy constable.

However, on the facts of this case and the statutes herein applicable, plaintiff’s rights are not governed by section 71092, but by sections 74606 and 74608 of the Government Code. Under section 74606, the new court was entitled only to four deputy marshals. The record indicates that, at the time herein involved, there were more than four persons (including plaintiff) who could claim a right to be “blanketed in” to those four positions. Section 74608 expressly deals with that situation. That section provides as follows:

The presiding judge of the new court had delegated to the sheriff the responsibility of selecting the four persons to receive the appointments. The sheriff determined that, as a condition of being so selected, a former constable must take and pass the training course to which plaintiff was sent. When plaintiff refused to complete the course, the sheriff determined that plaintiff was no longer eligible for selection and made other appointments. Under those circumstances, we need not determine whether the record supports the trial court’s finding that plaintiff’s letter of resignation was voluntary. Resignation or not, plaintiff was properly denied the appointment that he seeks.

At oral argument, counsel for plaintiff argued that the sheriff, acting as the designated agent of the judge, had no power to impose, as a condition of selection, any qualification other than those applicable when plaintiff was first appointed as a constable. The argument is without merit. Where, as here," the new qualification was legitimately related to ability to perform the duties of the office, the sheriff was within his power to impose it.

The judgment is affirmed.

Files, P. J., and Jefferson (Bernard), J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied December 28, 1977.