ZAHOOR AHMAD RATHER ETC & Ors. v. SHEIKH IMTIYAZ AHMAD ETC & Ors.

3.1 The second ground which weighed with the Single Judge of High Court was that the holder of a diploma is eligible for the higher post of Junior Engineer and hence a candidate who holds a diploma must be “pre-supposed” to hold the lower qualification of an ITI. Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State, as the employer, is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. [Paras 18 and 22] [1093-E-F; 1097-D-G]

3.2 While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The State is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision making. The State as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. [Para 23][1098-A-C]