Point of Law: it is the legal or executive policy of the Government to create post or to prescribe the qualification for the post. The Court or Tribunal is devoid of power to give such direction. The relief sought by the petitioners in this petitions is also seeking direction to hold that the educational qualification prescribed for the particular post is prayed to be set aside.

ORDER :

[1] This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners seeing direction to quash and set aside the communication dated 25.11.2019 by which qualification was prescribed for the post of Vidyut Sahayak (Junior Assistant).

[2] It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners who are having qualification of engineering are barred from participating in the recruitment process to the post of Vidyut Sahayak (Junior Assistant) and therefore, the educational qualification fixed under the impugned communication is not a reasonable criteria to match with the requirement of the post. It is also contended that the petitioners who are having qualification higher than the qualification prescribed cannot be treated ineligible.

[3] As the petitioners are raising common questions and issues, at the request of learned advocates for the parties, both the petitions are taken up for joint hearing and disposal. The facts are recorded from Special Civil Application No.905 of 2020.

[4] Learned advocate for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are having educational qualification of Bachelor of Engineering in Computer, Electrical, Mechanical Engineering etc. respectively. The petitioners had applied for the post of Vidyut Sahayak in the year 2017 and 2018 in response to the public advertisement. The recruitment drive was for the purpose of filling up the vacancies by Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited which had advertised the posts on behalf of sister companies like UGVCL, DGVCL, MGVCL, PGVCL and GSECL. It is submitted that in the advertisement in the year 2017 for this post, the only educational qualification was full-time graduate from a recognized University. Again in the year 2018, the educational qualification was the same as in the previous year. However, in the year 2019, the advertisement prescribed the qualification for the post of Vidyut Sahayak (Junior Assistant) as full-time B.A., B.com, B.Sc., BCA and BBA from recognized University. The petitioners had applied pursuant to this advertisement however, are treated to be ineligible on account of lack of qualification as prescribed in the advertisement.

[4.1] In this regard, it is submitted that as the advertisement of the year 2017 and 2018 prescribed the educational qualification only to be full-time graduate, the petitioners were eligible to appear in the examination and when the petitioners had applied, at that time, the petitioners had lost chance of employment. It is also submitted that there was no reason for the respondents to cancel the recruitment process which was started in the year 2017 and 2018 and thereafter, in the recruitment process initiated in the year 2019 amend the nature of qualification for the post.

[4.2] It is submitted that the post of Vidyut Sahayak is not a highly technical post and does not require proficiency in any technical discipline. The job profile involves a clerical work like recording of meters and preparations of bills, vouchers etc. and therefore, for such posts, the educational qualification of the petitioners cannot act as ineligibility.

[4.3] Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the qualification of all the petitioners is higher than the qualification prescribed for the post. Therefore, the higher qualification of the petitioners cannot be considered as a disqualification. In this regard reliance is placed upon the decision in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and others v/s. District & Sessions Judge, Nagarpur and others, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 606. Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court to para-20 of the judgment and submitted that the qualification higher than the prescribed minimum qualification, cannot act as disadvantage to the candidates.

[4.4] Learned advocate has also relied upon the decision in the case of P.M.Latha and another v/s. State of Kerala and others, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 541, wherein attention is drawn to para-10. The petitioners have then relied up