Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioner has rushed to this Court for declaring Clause1(a) of the Broucher issued issued by U.P. Secondary Education Board which limits the zone of consideration by imposing 45% marks in graduation for undertaking U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test (UPTET) 2011.

2. Petitioner submits that on account of imposition of such a condition, petitioner’s candidature stands rejected under U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test, 2011 and as such aforementioned condition in question is arbitrary and unreasonable, as same has the effect of making their B.Ed Degree as redundant and negatory. Petitioner has stated that she has perused her B.Ed course on the mark obtained by her in written examination of post graduate and now at this juncture of life on account of imposing such condition of having 45% at Graduation level has no nexus with the fixation of such eligibility criteria blocking the road for under taking examination.

3. Sri. P.N. Tripathi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that imposition of such condition is completely arbitrary and unreasonable and as such said condition is liable to be struck down.

4. Sri. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate on the other hand contended that fixation of eligibility criteria is the domain of employer and once employer in his wisdom has chosen to fix eligibility criteria for qualifying examination, then this Court in exercise of its authority of judicial review cannot interfere.

5. After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual position, which is emerging in the present case that Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. at Allahabad has issued advertisement dated 22.9.2011 for conducting U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test, 2011 and the said exercise has been undertaken by Ntional Council for Teacher Education pursuant to the mandate provided for under Section 23 of Right of Children to fee and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. At this juncture petitioners who have not got to their credit 45% marks at graduation level have rushed to this Court for quashing of the said condition.

6. Once eligibility criteria has been fixed by National Council For Teacher Eduction and accordingly State Government has proceeded to invite application mentioning therein eligibility criteria and therein clear cut provision has been made that at graduation level, incumbent who have 45% marks, only can apply then qua the said, policy decision fixing particular eligibility criteria, then this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners.

7. Apex Court in the case of P.M. Lata and another v. State of Kerala and others, JT 2003 (2) SC 423, has taken the view that fixation of qualification for particular post is matter of recruitment policy. Relevant extract of the said judgment is being quoted below:

“We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by the respondents that B.Ed qualification is a higher qualification then TTC and therefore, the B.Ed. candidates should be held to be eligible to complete for the post. On behalf of the applicants, it is pointed out before us that Trained Teacher’s Certificate is given to teachers specially trained to teach small children in primary classes whereas for B.Ed degree, the training imparted is to teach students of classes above primary B.Ed degree holders, therefore, cannot necessarily be held to be holding qualification suitable for appointment as teachers in primary schools. Whether for a particular post, the source of recruitment should be from the candidates with TTC qualification or B.Ed. qualification, is a matter of recruitment policy. We find sufficient logic and justification in the State prescribing qualification for the post of primary teaches as only TTC and not B.Ed. Whether B.Ed qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed candidates for the present vacancies advertised as eligible.

8. Apex Court again in the case of Yogesh Kumar a