CWP No.23416 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.23416 of 2011 Date of Decision:19th of December, 2011 Rana Narinder Singh ... Petitioner Versus Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited & another ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: :-Dr. Dayal Partap Singh Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner. TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.(ORAL) The challenge in the present petition is to the impugned condition in the advertisement dated 11.11.2011 Annexure P-1 whereby the terms of recruitment to the post of Law Officer in Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited has laid down with the following basic and professional qualifications:- 1. Full time graduation with minimum 60% marks and full time regular graduation in law with professional 3 years course with minimum 60% marks or five years integrated degree graduation in law with professional course with minimum 60% marks. 2. Three years post qualification experience in law matters. In terms thereof, the applicants are required to meet a basic bench mark of having 60% marks in graduation and also 60% marks in the law professional course. Counsel for the petitioner primarily contends that imposition of such a bench mark and laying down of basic and professional qualification is arbitrary and discriminatory. CWP No.23416 of 2011 -2- The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the advertisement issued by the Punjab Publlic Service Commission, and also to the advertisement issued by the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited, to contend that in the process of selection to the post of Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) in the State of Punjab and for a appointment as law officer with the Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited, no such condition has been imposed. Likewise the reliance has also been placed to the advertisement issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant District Attorney. Laying down of qualification, eligibility and criteria, etc. for recruitment to a particular post is the prerogative of the employer. This Court in exercise of its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not venture into such exercise to hold that the qualification so prescribed are bad in law unless the qualifications are wholly unjust and absolutely irrelevent. In terms of the impugned condition and the advertisement it would be clear that the respondent-Corporation has invited the applications from amongst the candidates who possess a consistently good academic record. The observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Manjul Vs. The Chairman, UPSC & another 2006(4) S.C.T. 329 would be relevent. It was held in the following terms:- The statutory authority is entitled to frame statutory rules laying down terms and conditions of service as also the qualifications essential for holding a particular post. It is only the authority concerned who can take ultimate decision therefor. CWP No.23416 of 2011 -3- The jurisdiction of the superior Courts it is a trite law, would be to interpret the rule and not to supplant or supplement the same. It is well settled that the superior courts while exercising their jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India ordinarily do not direct an employer to prescribe a qualification for holding a particular post. No interference as such is required. The petition is without any merit. Accordingly dismissed. 19.12.2011 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) aarti JUDGE