Limiting educational qualifications for employment posts can be justified under employer's discretion, provided there is no arbitrary application; courts should refrain from questioning these determinations.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Chamuah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. T. R. Gogoi, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1. Heard also Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the advertisement dated 19.09.2023 and further seeking a direction upon the respondent No.4 to re-advertise the post with modified conditions by removing the upper limit of educational qualification for the post of peon in the establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon, Assam.

3. From a perusal of the materials on record, it would show that on 19.09.2023, the District and Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon i.e. the respondent no.4 herein had issued an advertisement for filling up of 2 (two) vacant posts of Office Peon in the Establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon. The requisite qualifications stipulated in the said advertisement was “Class VIII passed. (HSSLC passed or above shall be ineligible.)”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that limiting of the qualification vide the impugned advertisement dated 19.09.2023 is in violation to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and in that regard, has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and Others Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and Others , (2000) 2 SCC 606 . He submitted that limiting of the said qualification to those candidates who have not passed HSSLC is required to be interfered with. The learned counsel further submitted that the District Judges’ Establishment in various Districts under the Gauhati High Court have been issuing advertisements containing different qualifications and as such, the said impugned advertisement dated 19.09.2023 is required to be interfered with.

5. Per contra, Mr. H.K. Das, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 submitted that in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and Another Vs. Anit Kumar Das , (2021) 12 SCC 80 a three Judges’ Bench of the Supreme Court after taking into consideration the judgment in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani (supra) had observed that it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the Courts to consider and assess. He further submitted that the impugned advertisement so issued is in consonance with the notification dated 04.01.2021 issued by the Registrar (Vigilance) of the Gauhati High Court whereby the Rule 6(d) of the Gauhati High Court Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967 was incorporated and applied for stipulating the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Grade-IV in the District Judiciary within the State of Assam.

6. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and given its anxious consideration.

7. From a perusal of the advertisement dated 19.09.2023, impugned in the instant proceedings, it is seen that the requisite qualification set out therein for the candidates to apply for the two posts of Office Peon is Class VIII passed and the candidates who had passed HSSLC or above shall be ineligible. This Court finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to by the learned cou