Heard Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned relief:-
"6(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of the mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned advertisement dated 24.01.2012 issued by the Respondent No.2 to the extent that it has enhanced the requisite qualification of candidates applying for the post of Sanitary Sub-Inspector from HSC to Graduate;
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of the mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.2 Corporation to accept the application of the Petitioner for the post of Sanitary Sub-Inspector and thereby permit the Petitioner to participate in the recruitment process."
3. At the outset, it is necessary to mention that on earlier occasion, in view of the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner, certain queries were raised and one of the queries was with regard to the relevant Selection and Recruitment Rules of the respondent Corporation. It was inquired as to whether the Selection and Recruitment Rules of the Corporation prescribes any qualification for the post in question or not. The said query had to be raised in view of the fact that the petition does not contain such details. In view of the query, learned advocate for the petitioner has requested for time to inquire as to whether there are any Selection and Recruitment Rules or not and if the corporation has its Selection and Recruitment Rules, whether the said Rules contain any provision with regard to the qualifications, experience, etc. (as regards the post in question) or not.
4. However, today, when the matter is listed after having accommodated petitioner's request, learned advocate for the petitioner has returned with the submission that the petitioner is still not aware about the details and he could not get any information. Therefore, today, the petition is considered on the basis of the material placed on record by the petitioner.
5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the qualification criterion prescribed by the respondent corporation in respect of the post of Sanitary Sub-Inspector.
6. So far as the respondent corporation is concerned, it has prescribed requirement of Graduation from any faculty as requisite qualification for the post of Sanitary Sub-Inspector. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is not a graduate and he does not possess requisite qualification.
6.1 Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the said decision of the respondent corporation of prescribing Graduation as requisite qualification for the post of Sanitary Sub-Inspector.
7. The ground on which the challenge is pressed is that in other corporations, the criterion prescribed for the said post is of HSC and not Graduation. Hence, only on the ground that since other corporations have prescribed requirement of HSC as the requisite qualification criterion for the post of Sanitary Sub-Inspector, present respondent corporation is not justified in prescribing qualification of Graduation.
8. It is settled legal position that the employer has prerogative of deciding the requisite qualification and other eligibility criterion for recruitment of employees on different posts. The said aspect, i.e. the aspect of deciding requisite eligibility criterion, including educational qualification and/or experience, etc., are matters within the discretion and within the realm of employer and Court would not interfere in such matters. The employer is the best Judge of its own requirement.
9. In present case, the respondent corporation has, after considering the relevant aspects and its requirements, etc. prescribed the requirement of Graduation i.e. Bachelor Degree, for the post of Sanitary Sub-Inspector as a requisite qualification / eligibility criterion.
10. As mentioned above, the petitioner does not possess such qualification. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the said decision of the respondent corporation of prescribing the said qualification / eligibility criterion for the post in question. The challenge is based only on the ground that the qualification criteria prescribed by present respondent corporation is different and higher than in other corporations.
11. Merely because other corporations have prescribed different qualifications and merely because in other corporations, the requisite qualification is of HSC and not Graduation, the petitioner cannot insist that the respondent corporation cannot, in its own wisdom and discretion and for its own requirement, prescribe any other eligibility criterion. The qualification prescribed by other corporation/s will not render the decision of respondent corporation as invalid or arbitrary.
12. In present case, the corporation issued advertisement dated 24.1.2012 (Annexure-A) for effecting recruitment on different posts. One of the posts for which advertisement is issued is the post in question. According to the said advertisement, the respondent corporation has prescribed the eligibility criterion/requisite qualification. According to the advertisement, the respondent corporation requires that the candidate should be a graduate in any faculty and he must have also passed the course of Sanitary Inspector and must possessing 3 years' experience. The age limit is also prescribed. It is also clear that in respect of all posts, which are advertised, the respondent corporation has prescribed requisite qualifications and other eligibility criterion. As mentioned above, the said aspects are within the realm of the employer and it is employer's prerogative to prescribe the requisite qualification and eligibility criterion and the Court would not be justified in interfering with the decision of employer and/or in directing/requiring the respondent corporation to change the criterion prescribed by it.
13. Except the ground that in other corporations the prescribed qualification is of HSC, any other contention to support the challenge is not made out.
14. The petitioner has failed to make out any substantial and strong reason to entertain the petition and to interfere with the prerogative of the employer. The petition fails and deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc Top