Judgment:
D.N. Patel, J.
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is challenging the qualification fixed by respondent No. 1 for the post of Attendant-cum-Junior Technician in Steel Authority of India Limited, as the petitioner is not having a matriculation/I.T.I. qualification, which is required for the aforesaid posts, as per public advertisement dated 11' October, 2008/1st September, 2008 (Annexure-4 to the memo of the petition).
2. Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, for the following facts and reasons:
(i) It appears that the present petitioner is working as a contractor's employee, with respondent No. 1 and having Standard-VII pass qualification.
(ii) It appears that the petitioner expects to be an Attendant-cum-Junior Technician in respondent No. 1, but, the advertisement published by respondent No. 1 at Annexure-4 requires a minimum qualification as Matriculation/I.T.I.
(iii) Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that previously vide public advertisement at Annexure-3, for the same Grade S1. the minimum qualification prescribed was five years experience in similar field, whereas, in the latest advertisement at Annexure-4 dated 11th October, 2008/1st September, 2008, the minimum qualification has been enhanced and fixed as matriculation/I.T.I. for the very same scale of S1 Grade and therefore, the minimum qualification, which is fixed in public advertisement dated 11th October, 2008/1st September, 2008, at Annexure-4 to the memo of the petition, may be quashed and the petitioner may be declared as an eligible candidate and may be allowed to compete with other candidates, for the post of Attendant-cum-Junior Technician. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that the comparison of the post: Service Hand at Annexure-3 with another post: Attendant-cum-Junior Technician at Annexure-4 cannot be made with reference to Grade S1. Thus, the petitioner, who is basically a helping hand of cleaning type works, he wants to be an Attendant-cum-Junior Technician scale in the same Grade S1. but, the work to be performed, for the post of Attendant-cum-Junior Technician, is a different than one, which is given at Annexure-3 to the advertisement. There may be Grade S1 in previous advertisement at Annexure-3 as well as in the present public advertisement in Annexure-4, but, the posts are different in the same Grade. One is 'Service Hand' whereas another is 'Attendant-cum-Junior Technician'. There can be different posts and different work is to be performed in the same grade and therefore, same qualification cannot be maintained by respondent No. 1 for the post of Attendant-cum-Junior Technician post. In view of these facts, there cannot be equality amongst the unequals and therefore, contentions, raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that for the same Grade, there must be the same qualification, is not accepted by this Court, because, nature of work to be performed, in S1 Grade is different, looking to the nature of the post of Attendant-cum-Junior Technician and therefore, the matriculation/I.T.I. qualification has been fixed by respondent No. 1.
(iv) It is further appears that what qualification is to be fixed for which post, is a policy decision and generally, this Court in exercise of powers, vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will be slow in interfering with the minimum qualification, fixed by the employer, which is State, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
3. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition. Hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.