A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. Present petition is filed seeking prayers for quashing and setting aside the decision of respondent to withdraw the appointment of the petitioner as part time sweeper as revealed in the letter dated 20.02.2008. Brief facts of the present petition are that the name of the present petitioner was registered with Employment Exchange Department, Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad which sent his name to respondent bank pursuant to which the petitioner was called for an interview on 16.01.2008 for the post of part time sweeper at the Ashram Road branch of respondent bank.

2. The petitioner appeared at the interview. At the time of the interview, the petitioner carried with him the relevant documents including his 10th standard pass mark-sheet which were examined by the authorities. The petitioner met the eligibility criteria and cleared the interview. The respondent Bank vide letter dated 07.02.2008, informed the petitioner about his appointment on the post of part time sweeper in the subordinate cadre in the Ashram Road branch of respondent bank.

3. The petitioner complied with the formalities as mentioned in the said letter and provided original copies of the documents sought in the said letter. The original 10th standard pass mark-sheet was also provided to the authorities. The petitioner personally went to the office of respondent to provide the documents. The petitioner was made to sit and thereafter was asked to come on the next day. The petitioner went everyday from 18.02.2008 to 20.02.2008, however, he was neither allowed to sign the muster roll nor he was allowed to work.

4. The petitioner stated that on 20.02.2008, he was told that he could not be given appointment as his qualification was 10th standard pass whereas the eligibility criteria of respondent for the job was 9th standard pass. On the same day, he received a letter under which his appointment was withdrawn.

5. Learned advocate, Mr. Jaydeep Rajput appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the action of respondent is unjust as the only reason given by respondent is that the petitioner does not possess eligibility criteria for the post of part time sweeper which is 10th fail. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner should not have been denied the appointment only on the basis that he possessed higher qualification (i.e. 10th pass). Learned advocate, Mr. Jaydeep Rajput has also submitted that respondent bank as per requisition, Form sent to the Employment Exchange prescribed the essential qualification as "5th standard pass and should not be matriculate" for the post of part time sweeper. He has submitted that as since the petitioner possessed higher qualification for the post of part time sweeper the bank thought it fit not to appoint him. In view of the said submission he has stated that the bank has rightly concluded that the petitioner does not deserve to be appointed to the post of part time sweeper. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Pushparani, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 242 : (2008 AIR SCW 6564). The Supreme Court has held in the aforesaid judgment that matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of employees fall within the exclusive domain of employer.

6. In view of the aforesaid submission, he has urged that the present petition does not require any interference from this court.

7. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

8. The established fact suggests that the petitioner is denied the appointment on the post of part time sweeper only because he is 10th standard pass. This court fails to understand the nexus of duties to be carried out as part time sweeper with the qualifications prescribed by respondent bank of possessing 5th standard pass to