H. K. RATHOD, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned advocate Mr. JS Yadav on behalf of the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. AR Mehta appearing for respondent no. 2, on the basis of having advanced copy of petition from the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE ONGC Vadodara invited applications for 100 posts of Field operators on Four Year (4 Years) tenure basis, to meet the requirements of the work plan for hydrocarbon Blocks awarded to ONGC through NELP bidding. The positions are initially required for Ahmedabad, Ankleshwar and Mehsana locations of ONGC. The job demands outdoor field work in shifts requiring considerable physical efforts and technical skills and frequent relocation as demanded by the semi mobile nature of the operations to any Onshore/offshore locations within in India. The age limit, educational/ professional qualification etc. , as per said advertisement are as under: (1) Age Limit : 30 years for General candidates, 33 years for OBC and 35 years for SC/st Candidates as on 5/12/2006 in respect of Ex Apprentices, relaxation will be given to the extent of their apprenticeship training in ONGC. (2) Educational/professional Qualification: (a)High School (Class X) with ITI in fitting/ Diesel/ Turner/ Machining/ Welding trades. Minimum qualifying marks - 65% in ITI for general and OBC and 55% for SC/st. (b) Candidates with Diploma in engineering in Mechanical or Production disciplines may also apply. Qualifying marks shall be minimum 60% for General/obc and 50% for SC/st candidates. (3) Physical and Fitness requirements: (a) Physical requirements : height 170 Cms Minimum (ii) weight 60 Kgs Minimum (iii) Chest 85 Cms (Unexpanded) with a minimum expansion of 6 Cms on full inspiration, (iv) Vision 6x6 without glasses without any history of night/ colour blindness, etc. For candidates from Hill Areas and north Eastern Region: (i) Height 167 Cms Minimum (ii) weight 58 Kgs Minimum, (iii) Chest 81 Cms (unexpanded) with a minimum expansion of 6 Cms. On full inspiration (iv) Vision 6x6 without glasses, without any history of night/ colour blindness etc. " (b) Physical Fitness requirements: (i) Transport a 50 pound (. e. 22. 6 Kgs approx) object upstairs of 40 steps/120 feet distance, with one arm. (ii) Transport 100 pounds (. e. 45 Kgs approx) over 25 feet distance, with two arms (ii) Swing sledge hammer 25 times through overhand, underhand and side arm motion (iv) Climbing a vertical ladder 150 feet. e. 22. 6 Kgs approx) object upstairs of 40 steps/120 feet distance, with one arm. (ii) Transport 100 pounds (. e. 45 Kgs approx) over 25 feet distance, with two arms (ii) Swing sledge hammer 25 times through overhand, underhand and side arm motion (iv) Climbing a vertical ladder 150 feet. The findings of the physical, medical tests conducted by ONGC will only be final and binding. (4) Remuneration : a consolidate salary of Rs. 15,500. 00 inclusive of all allowances. For the limited purpose of determining various entitlements, the tenure pay would deemed to be Rs. 5000. 00 per month. The annual increment of 4% is admissible on the tenure pay, subject to satisfactory performance. Additionally, PF and Bonus shall also be paid as per statutory rules. ( 3 ) THE selection procedure is also prescribed in the advertisement, item no. 6, which is quoted as under : "selection Procedure : after initial screening, the candidates will be required to undergo written test, physical fitness tests and interview, in any sequences as decided by ONGC. (b) Medium of examination will be english. The paper will be objective in nature with multiple choice answers. Duration will be 90 minutes. (c) Date of written test 21st January 2007 (Sunday) at Vadodara. (d) Time and venue (center) for written test at Vadodara will be intimated in the Admit Card. (e) No TAIDA is admissible for attending written test, physical fitness tests or interview. Candidates meeting the qualifying criteria may apply by submitting an application as per the format given below typed on A-4 size paper, affixing a latest passport size photograph. The Admit card portion in the application format should be in a separate A4 size sheet, duly filled in by the candidate and a photograph affixed in the identified box. " ( 4 ) IN advertisement learned advocate mr. Yadav has objected two conditions one is physical fitness requirements and second is medium of examination will be English. Learned advocate Mr. Yadav submitted that their names were called from employment exchange by the ONGC and accordingly petitioners received call letters to fill up form from the ONGC. Accordingly, petitioners had filled up form and submitted to the ONGC. Learned advocate Mr. Yadav submitted that some Apprentices should have to clear specific training with the ONGC. Learned advocate Mr. Yadav submitted that their names were called from employment exchange by the ONGC and accordingly petitioners received call letters to fill up form from the ONGC. Accordingly, petitioners had filled up form and submitted to the ONGC. Learned advocate Mr. Yadav submitted that some Apprentices should have to clear specific training with the ONGC. The petitioners are dependents of land losers whose lands have been acquired by ONGC, therefore they are entitled some concession from the Corporation. He also submitted that subsequently in Madras same post has been advertised, but no written test has been declared to be taken by the Corporation. According to him, the answer is given by corporation that it was the departmental test means departmental purpose. He also submitted that first time said examination is to be taken, normally such type of required post only viva voce. He submitted that Gujarat Official Languages Act provided that the language to be used in Gujarat which may be Hindi/gujarati but not only english. He also submitted that these petitioners are belonging to rural area. He also submitted that these two conditions are unreasonable conditions and arbitrary. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to challenge such conditions which are arbitrary according to the petitioner. He also submitted that test of physical fitness is extremely high like a post of Commando, therefore, it is unreasonable. ( 5 ) EXCEPT that, no other submissions are made by learned advocate Mr. Yadav, expect one decision of Apex Court relied by him in case of UP STATE ROAD transport CORPORATION AND another V/s. UP PARIVAHAN NIGAM shishukhs BEROZGAR SANGH AND others REPORTED IN AIR 1995 (SC page 1115. This judgment has been relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Yadav on the ground that once apprentices training has been completed successfully by the apprentices then such apprentices are entitled for the job with such employer where he completed training. In the said decision it is not decided that such apprentices should have to challenge the conditions which has been incorporated in advertisement. In this case learned advocate mr. Yadav is not able to point out any concessions from the Corporation which has been given by the Corporation while giving apprentices training to such candidates, there was no reciprocal promise given by corporation to such apprentice, therefore, this decision is not applicable to the fact of this case. In this case learned advocate mr. Yadav is not able to point out any concessions from the Corporation which has been given by the Corporation while giving apprentices training to such candidates, there was no reciprocal promise given by corporation to such apprentice, therefore, this decision is not applicable to the fact of this case. Except that no other decision is relied by learned advocate Mr. Yadav. ( 6 ) THE question is whether petitioners are having legal right to challenge such conditions which have been advertised by the Corporation. The legal right must be based on either statutory provisions or recruitment rules or as constitutional right granted under the constitution of India. Merely because the, petitioners are not able to appear in the examination in English Medium, therefore, that conditions can not be considered to be unreasonable or arbitrary. The Job chart initially made cleared by the Corporation that it required outdoor field work requiring physical efforts and technical skills and having semi mobile nature of the operations to any Onshore/offshore locations within in india. The nature of job work required such kind of conditions while selecting the candidates by the Corporation. A consolidate salary of Rs. 15, 500/- inclusive of all allowances for those candidates who have been selected in the post of field operators per month. Looking to the monthly remuneration of the post and considering the nature of work and mobile nature of the operations in India required examination in english Medium and also required higher physical fitness. However, learned advocate mr. Yadav is not able to point out any legal right to challenge such advertisement, once it is published by the respondent corporation. Writ of Mandamus can not be issued against the Corporation unless the petitioner satisfies this Court that legal or statutory or constitutional right of the petitioners are violated or statutory rules has been violated by the respondent corporation while issuing advertisement by putting two conditions of physical fitness and examination in English. No violation of any such right has been pointed out by learned advocate Mr. Yadav. This Court having very limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India in administrative matter. The advertisement which has been issued by the respondent Corporation is administrative action/decision to fill up the post of field operators. No violation of any such right has been pointed out by learned advocate Mr. Yadav. This Court having very limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India in administrative matter. The advertisement which has been issued by the respondent Corporation is administrative action/decision to fill up the post of field operators. ( 7 ) IN case of S. K. MANJUL V/s. CHAIRMAN OF UPSC AND ORS, reported IN 2006 SCC (Lands) 1780, the relevant para no. 23 and 25 which is quoted as under : "23. The qualifications for recruitment to a post are laid down in terms of the statutory rules. The fourth respondent raised a contention before the Tribunal that several persons named in Ground "g" of the writ petition had occupied the very post in the archaeological department although they were experts in Epigraphy. The statutory authority is entitled to frame the statutory rules laying down the terms and conditions of service as also the qualifications essential for holding a particular post. It is only the authority concerned which can take ultimate decision therefore. " ( 8 ) THUS Apex Court has considered the scope of judicial review in the matter of prescription of qualification and it was held that the statutory authority framing rules is entitled to lay down the qualification and only concerned authority can take the decision in the matter. It was held that while exercising jurisdiction under Art 226/32, High courts/supreme Court would ordinarily not direct employer to prescribe a qualification for holding a particular post. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid decision, this Court can not direct the Corporation to prescribe the particular procedure while filling up the post of field operators. It is own function of the corporation to decide the procedure for selection for the post of field operators and it is not function of the Court to interfere in such matter of selection procedure. The high Court cannot act as appellate authority. It is own function of the corporation to decide the procedure for selection for the post of field operators and it is not function of the Court to interfere in such matter of selection procedure. The high Court cannot act as appellate authority. The power of judicial review and judicial inquiry has been examined by Apex Court in case of EKTA SHAKTI FOUNDATION v/s. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI reported IN AIR 2006 SC PAGE 2609 which is quoted as under : "constitution of India, Arts, 32, 226- judicial review - Administrative action - scope of judicial inquiry - Confined to question whether action taken is against statute, fundamental rights or constitutional provisions - Court is not an appellate authority. Administrative Law - Administrative decision - Judicial review - Scope is limited. While exercising the power of judicial review of administrative action, the Court is not the appellate authority and the constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in matter of policy or to sermonize any matter which under-the Constitution lies within the sphere of the Legislature or the executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory power. The scope of judicial enquiry is confined to the question whether the decision taken by the government is against any statutory provisions or is violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, the position is that even if the decision taken by the Government does not appear to be agreeable to the Court it can not interfere. The correctness of the reasons which promoted the Government in decision making is not a matter of concern in judicial review and the Court is not the appropriate forum for such investigation. In matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the government so long as the interfere and the court will not and should not substitute its own judgment of the executive in such matters, In assessing the propriety of a decision of the government the Court can not interfere even if a second views is possible from that of the Government. " In view of the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court in Ekta Shakti foundation case (supra) this Court has limited power of judicial review in administrative matter unless, in administrative matter, while taking the decision by the Corporate body or said authority, any legal or fundamental statutory right of the petitioner is violated or statutory right, this Court can not interfere in administrative matter/decision. This Court can interfere in administrative matter if there is violation of any legal/ statutory/fundamental right and not otherwise. Learned advocate Mr. Yadav is not able to point out that any concession has been given by Corporation while acquiring the land in question of the petitioners. Learned advocate Mr. Yadav is also not able to point out that official language in corporation is only Hindi and not English. It is for the employer to specify the medium while taking examination to satisfy the job requirements from such candidates, therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances that petitioners are not able to establish that legal/ constitutional rights have been violated by the Corporation while putting two conditions one is physical fitness and Medium of examination in English. Unless and until violation of legal/statutory/ constitutional right is established, petition seeking writ of mandamus cannot be entertained. In P. RAMESH BAIPADITHAYA V/s. STATE OF karnataka REPORTED IN AIR 2006 (NOC) 1305 (KANT), it is observed as under: " (A) Constitution of I dia Art 226 - writ of Mandamus - Relief of Petitioner has to satisfy Court that he has a legal right; application is made in good faith - Moral or equitable obligation can not be enforced by a writ of mandamus. " In Chief Commissioner of Income tax, Bhopal and Ors. , versus M/s. Leena Jain and Ors. , 2006 (8) Supreme 920 , it is observed as under: "mandamus could not be issued in favour of employees directing the government to make them permanent or regularised since employees can not show that they had an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that State had a legal duty to make them permanent. " Before filing petitions, petitioners have not approached the respondents by way of some representation in respect of the grievances raised in these petitions. Petitions seeking writ of mandamus cannot be entertained unless and until the party seeking writ of mandamus approaches the respondent and obtain decision pursuant to such approach. " Before filing petitions, petitioners have not approached the respondents by way of some representation in respect of the grievances raised in these petitions. Petitions seeking writ of mandamus cannot be entertained unless and until the party seeking writ of mandamus approaches the respondent and obtain decision pursuant to such approach. For want of such prior approach of the respondents by the petitioners also, petitions cannot be entertained. This question has recently been examined by this Court in Special Civil application NO. 1538 of 2007 and allied matters decided on 25. 1. 2007. It has been observed by this Court as under in the said decision: 2. Before entering into the merits of the matter, this court has put question to learned Advocate Mr. Mishra as to whether the petitioners have approached the respondents by way of any representation before filing these petitions or not and if yes, whether the respondents have passed any adverse order in response to such representation or not because petitioners can approach this Court invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India only thereafter. If the petitioners want relief from this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India, then, petitioner must first approach the respondents. Learned Advocate MR. Mishra has not been able to give any answer to this question put by this Court. In entire petition, no such averment has been made by the petitioners as to whether they have approached the respondents before filing of these petitions or not. NO document has been produced to justify that before filing the present petitions, petitioners have approached the respondents in respect of the grievances raised in these petitions. Therefore, I am examining the only issue that before praying for issuance of writ of mandamus from this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,whether prior approach is must or not and whether petition without such prior approach is maintainable or not. This aspect has been examined by the apex court in SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL syndicate LTD. ETC. V/s. UNION OF india REPORTED IN AIR 1975 SC 460 . Relevant para 24 and 25 are reproduced as under: "24. As the appeals fail on merits we need not discuss the technical difficulty which an application for a writ of certiorari would encounter when no quasi-judicial proceeding was before the High Court. ETC. V/s. UNION OF india REPORTED IN AIR 1975 SC 460 . Relevant para 24 and 25 are reproduced as under: "24. As the appeals fail on merits we need not discuss the technical difficulty which an application for a writ of certiorari would encounter when no quasi-judicial proceeding was before the High Court. The powers of the High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well- recognized rule that no writ or order in the nature of a Mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general role, which is subject to certain exceptions, applied by us, as it is in england, when a writ of Mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we find it set out in halsbury s Laws of England (3rd edition, Vol. 13, p. 106): "as a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the: mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand was met by a refusal. " 25. In the cases before us there was no such demand or refusal. Thus, no ground whatsoever is shown here for the issue of any writ, order, or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution. These appeals must be and are, hereby, dismissed but in the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. " In AMRIT LAL BERRY, K. N. KAPUR and OTHERS V/s. COLLECTOR OF central EXCISE, CENTRAL REVENUE and OTHERS, REPORTED IN AIR 1975 SC 538 , apex court observed as under in para 25: "25. In the petition of K. N. Kapur and others, we do not even find an assertion that any representation was made against any violation of a petitioner s right. In the petition of K. N. Kapur and others, we do not even find an assertion that any representation was made against any violation of a petitioner s right. Hence, the rule recognised by this Court in Kamini kumar Das V/s. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 2060 at p. 2065 that a demand for justice and its refusal must precede the filing of a petition asking for direction or Writ of mandamus, would also operate against the petitioners. "In STATE OF HARYANA AND another V/s. CHARAN MAL ETC. REPORTED IN AIR 1976 SC 1654 , apex court observed as under in para 42: 42. We proceed to record our conclusions as follows: 1. The Haryana Minerals (Vesting of rights) Act, 1973, is valid, as it is not, in any way, repugnant to the provisions of the mines and Minerals (Regulation of development) Act 67 of 1957, made by parliament. Ownership rights could be and have been validly acquired by the Haryana govt. under the Haryana Act. 2. No rights are shown by any petitioner before us to have been conferred upon him under any lease or licence executed or brought in accordance with the provisions of the Central Act 67 of 1957, but, any petitioner, either before the High Court or in this Court, now before us, who can establish any such right governed by the provisions of the Central Act, 67 of 1957 may take such proceedings before an appropriate court, if so advised as may still be open to him under the law, against any such action or Govt. notification as is alleged to infringe that right. We are unable to find any such right in any writ petition, as framed, now before us. 3. Any petitioner who applies for a writ or order in the nature of a Mandamus should, in compliance with a well known rule of practice, ordinarily, first call upon the authority concerned to discharge its legal obligation and show that it has refused or neglected to carry it out within a reasonable time before applying to a Court for such an order even where the alleged obligation is established. 4. In DR. G. SARANA V/s. UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW AND others, REPORTED IN AIR 1976 SC 2428 , apex court observed as under in para 16: "16. 4. In DR. G. SARANA V/s. UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW AND others, REPORTED IN AIR 1976 SC 2428 , apex court observed as under in para 16: "16. It is also difficult to understand how the writ petition or for that matter the present appeal before us is maintainable when the recommendation of the Selection committee has still to be scrutinized by the executive Council of the University and either accepted or rejected by it and other remedies by way of representation to the executive Council and an application for reference of the matter under Section 68 of the Uttar Pradesh Universities (Re-enactment and Amendment) Act, 1974, to the Chancellor are still open to the appellant and have not been exhausted. " 5. In BALWANT SINGH PARHAR and anr. V/s. UNION OF INDIA and ORS. REPORTED IN 2006 LAB IC 2081, Division bench of Rajasthan High Court observed as under in para 19: "19. From the record of the writ petition it appears that the petitioners have neither given any representation to the Pay commission nor to the Union of India nor railway Administration nor given any notice for demanded of justice and straightway filed the writ petition for seeking mandamus in the matter of pay parity contrary to the well established principle of law that giving notice for giving notice for demand of justice is sine qua non for seeking writ of mandamus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone as there was no occasion for the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioners of claim of parity in pay scale and also consider the objection of the respondents in reply of interference by the high Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India in such matters. In the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioners, it is nowhere laid down that the court should evaluate the job for the purpose of grant of equal pay for equal work. On the contrary, in some of the judgments of the supreme Court cited on behalf of the petitioners also and in the other judgments, it has been repeatedly held by the Supreme court that it is not for the Court to make job evolution for the purpose of considering the equation of post and parity in pay scale and it is for the Government to consider and decide. Thus it would not be proper for this court to make an enquiry in the matter of equation of post as well as grant of equal pay scale in absence of any representation to the respondents or pay Commission and findings thereon. Therefore, we may observe that it is open for the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents/ Pay commission as and when it is constituted in the matter of parity in pay scale and it is further expected from the respondents / Pay commission to consider the same and pass the appropriate order. " 6. In view of the above observations made by the apex court and the high court of Rajasthan, direct petition for a writ of mandamus without prior approach to the respondents is not maintainable. Unless and until the petitioner made approach to the respondents by way of representation and if the representation is rejected and/or there is inaction on the part of the authorities in deciding such representation, the petition can ordinarily, not to be entertained by this court. " Therefore, on the aforesaid ground also, without approaching to the Respondent corporation, direct petitions are not maintainable. Petitioners have totally failed in establishing their legal and enforceable right for exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. Conditions incorporated in the advertisement are based on reasoning and rational which would require to meet exigency while performing duties with responsibility by the Field Operators. It is the prerogative of the employer to demand particular standard of physical fitness and fluency in language. Candidate cannot challenge such condition as he is not having fluency in English and physical standard as required by the Corporation. Therefore, considering the job chart as mentioned in the advertisement which definitely require higher physical fitness and fluency in english, otherwise, candidate those who are selected cannot discharge their duties effectively. There is vast difference in merely discharging duties and discharging duties effectively. Therefore, Corporation is entitled to demand certain specific requirement from the candidate to have effective discharging of duties for the post in which such candidates will be selected. High Court cannot interfere in such matters where corporation is having absolute discretionary powers to prescribe procedure for selection and incorporate condition for the post of Field operators. Therefore, Corporation is entitled to demand certain specific requirement from the candidate to have effective discharging of duties for the post in which such candidates will be selected. High Court cannot interfere in such matters where corporation is having absolute discretionary powers to prescribe procedure for selection and incorporate condition for the post of Field operators. According to my opinion, these two conditions which are under challenge as referred to above cannot be considered to be unreasonable and arbitrary in any manner whatsoever and, the petitioners have not been able to establish that their enforceable legal right has been violated by the corporation by prescribing such selection procedure and incorporating such conditions in the advertisement. There is no substance in the present group of petitions and the same is not requiring any interference of this court in respect of two conditions which have been referred to in the advertisement for the post of Field Operators at page 27, annexure B. In view of the above observations and directions, present petitions are dismissed.