JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, for clarity sake, facts of CWP No. 1639/2012-D have been taken into consideration. 2. Ms. Suman Thakur, has strenuously argued that petitioners have obtained their diplomas from various institutions within the State of Himachal Pradesh and from other States. According to her, petitioners are eligible to be appointed as Female Multipurpose Health Worker Class-III (Non-Gazetted) as per Himachal Pradesh Department of Health and Family Welfare, Female Multipurpose Health Worker, Class-III (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1998 notified on 15.12.1998. She also argued that few of the petitioners have also got themselves registered with the Himachal Pradesh Para Medical Council and few of the petitioners have got themselves registered with Himachal Pradesh Nurses Registration Council. She finally contended that the recruitment to the post of Multipurpose Health Workers should be made 50% by way of batch-wise basis. 3. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that it is the prerogative of the State Government to frame Recruitment and Promotion Rules and according to him, the Himachal Pradesh Department of Health and Family Welfare, Female Multipurpose Health Worker, Class-III (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1998 framed on 15.12.1998 are in accordance with law. He then argued that the scope of judicial review in these matters is very limited. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings meticulously. 5. The Himachal Pradesh Department of Health and Family Welfare, Female Multipurpose Health Worker, Class-III (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1998 for the post of Female Multipurpose Health Worker were notified on 15.12.1998. Rule 7 reads thus: 7. Minimum educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits: a) Essential:- (i) Should be a matric with science/Hr. Secondary Part-I Pass or its equivalent from a recognised Board/Institution. (ii) Should possess one and half years training certificate as F.H.W. from a Government recognised institute. (b) Desirable qualification:- Knowledge of customs, manners and dialects of Himachal Pradesh and suitability for appointment in the peculiar conditions prevailing in the Pradesh. 6. Secondary Part-I Pass or its equivalent from a recognised Board/Institution. (ii) Should possess one and half years training certificate as F.H.W. from a Government recognised institute. (b) Desirable qualification:- Knowledge of customs, manners and dialects of Himachal Pradesh and suitability for appointment in the peculiar conditions prevailing in the Pradesh. 6. It is evident from the bare reading of rule 7 that the candidate should be matric with science/Higher Secondary Part-I Pass or its equivalent from a recognised Board/Institution and should also possess one and half years training certificate as F.H.W. from a Government recognised Institute. According to the reply filed by the respondent-State, most of the petitioners have obtained their training from Rattan Rani Hospital, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, which is not recognised even by the Indian Nursing Council. 7. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, learned Additional Advocate General has drawn our attention to Annexure R-2/1. This is communication sent by the Indian Nursing Council to the Joint Director of Health Services, Health and Family Welfare Department, Shimla. According to this communication, Rattan Rani Hospital Srinagar (J&K) has not been recognised by the Indian Nursing Council. However, we are of the considered view that the decision whether a particular educational qualification is recognised or not has to be taken as per para 6.4 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters Vol-I (Second Edition). According to these instructions, the cases for recognition of general academic and nontechnical degrees/diplomas are to be dealt with by the Department of Personnel (A-II) and the orders are to be issued by the Personnel Department. The Department of Personnel (A-II) is required to consult the Education Department or the other Department(s) dealing with the affairs of such non-technical professions, if need be, for processing the cases in regard to recognition of general academic/technical/non-technical degrees/ diplomas awarded by various Universities/Boards/institutions etc. for the purpose of recruitment to various services/posts under the State Government. Respondent-State has not undertaken this exercise till date to recognise the diplomas obtained by the petitioners for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Female Multipurpose Health Worker. 8. As far as contention of Ms. Suman Thakur that since the petitioners are registered with the Himachal Pradesh Para Medical Council and Himachal Pradesh Nurses Registration Council, they are eligible for appointment as Female Multipurpose Health Worker, the same deserves rejection. 8. As far as contention of Ms. Suman Thakur that since the petitioners are registered with the Himachal Pradesh Para Medical Council and Himachal Pradesh Nurses Registration Council, they are eligible for appointment as Female Multipurpose Health Worker, the same deserves rejection. Merely registration with the Himachal Pradesh Para Medical Council and Himachal Pradesh Nurses Registration Council will not make the petitioners eligible till they possess the essential qualification provided under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The Court cannot direct the manner in which the Recruitment and Promotion Rules are to be framed by the State Government. According to rule 10 of the Himachal Pradesh Department of Health and Family Welfare, Female Multipurpose Health Worker, Class-III (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1998, the mode of recruitment is 100% by way of direct recruitment. We cannot direct the respondent-State to make change/amend the rules by providing 50% recruitment on batch-wise basis. However, Ms. Suman Thakur has submitted that representation has already been made by the petitioners seeking change in the amendment of rules for providing 50% recruitment on batch-wise basis. It is the prerogative of the State Government to take a decision thereupon after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court in Malikarjun Rao and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (1990) 2 SCC 707 have held that the Power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India to frame rules is the legislative power. This power under the Constitution has to be exercised by the President or the Governor of a State as the case may be. The High Courts or the Administrative Tribunals cannot issue a mandate to the State Government to legislate under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships have held as under: "13. The Special Rules have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India to frame rules is the legislative power. This power under the constitution has to be exercised by the President or the Governor of a State as the case may be. The High Courts or the Administrative Tribunals cannot issue a mandate to the State Government to legislate under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. This power under the constitution has to be exercised by the President or the Governor of a State as the case may be. The High Courts or the Administrative Tribunals cannot issue a mandate to the State Government to legislate under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Courts cannot usurp the functions assigned to the executive under the constitution and cannot even indirectly require the executive to exercise its rule making power in any manner. The Courts cannot assume to itself a supervisory role over the rule making power of the executive under Article 309 of the Constitution of India" 10. Their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Manjul v. Chairman, UPSC and others, (2006) 8 SCC 42 have held that qualifications for recruitment to a post are laid down in terms of the statutory rules. 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. Their Lordships have held as under: "25. 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. 26. 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. 27. It is well-settled that the superior courts while exercising their jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India ordinarily do not direct an employer to prescribe a qualification for holding a particular post" 11. According to the reply filed by the respondent-State, the process for filling up the posts was also initiated in the year 2002; however, the same was scrapped since out of 345 candidates, 334 candidates were found ineligible. 12. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made herein above, all the petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent-State to take a decision to recognise the diplomas obtained by the petitioners as per para 6.4 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters Vol-1 (Second Edition) for the purpose of recruitment within a period of three months from today. Respondent-State is directed to take a final decision on the representation made by the petitioners for providing 50% recruitment on batch-wise basis. Respondent-State is directed to take a final decision on the representation made by the petitioners for providing 50% recruitment on batch-wise basis. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.