JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- (a) That a writ of certiorari may be issued thereby setting aside the minimum qualification prescribed for considering promotion beyond the post of Deputy Manager in the Research Wing in the Rules/procedure of promotion policy of the respondents as given vide clause 6 and letters whereby representations of the petitioner for the purpose are rejected may very kindly be set aside. (b) That a Writ Mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to prescribe requisite qualification meant for the purpose i.e. B.E.(Civil) with benefit of improvement of qualification viz. AMIE (Civil) and M.Sc/B.Sc in Chemistry or Physics with relatively more experience as is provided by the Ministry of Energy, Department of Power, New Delhi and further as is available with respect to the post being advertised and filled up by the Union Public Service Commission for the post of Research Officers in the Research Wing of the field of Concrete Technology and Soil Engineering as otherwise, Corporation is acting contrary to the national interest by providing qualification of M.Sc. from recognized University in any faculty, which qualification as provided for the purpose in law by any stretch of imagination cannot be held good, with directions to the respondents to reconsider and re-frame the Rules with respect to the qualification in Rules/promotion policy vide clause No. 6, and accordingly, to reconsider and grant benefit to the petitioner throughout from the date same fell due to the petitioner with respect to the promotion, in the interest of law and justice. (c) Directions may be given to the respondents to produce the records of the case. (d) Any other and further reliefs to which the petitioner is found fit and proper may also very kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Scientific Assistant Grade-I vide order dated 2.2.1978 and he joined as such on 20.7.1978 in Salal Hydro Electric Project and was posted in Quality Control Unit. Vide order dated 20.7.1978, petitioner was reappointed as Research Assistant (Regular) and was posted in Quality Control Division. Vide order dated 20.7.1978, petitioner was reappointed as Research Assistant (Regular) and was posted in Quality Control Division. However, on account of transfer of Salal Project to NHPC Limited, services of the petitioner were transferred in the same capacity, designation and nature of job with effect from 1.4.1983 to NHPC Limited. Petitioner also averred that owing to re-designation of the post of Research Assistant, designation of the petitioner was changed vide letter dated 14.1.1985 and he was promoted w.e.f. 1.7.1984 as Senior Supervisor (Research) Grade-II. However, vide order dated 1.7.1988, petitioner was promoted as Senior Supervisor Grade-1 and thereafter promoted as Research Officer in the year, 1992 and Assistant Manager (Research) in the year, 1996. In the year 2001, petitioner was promoted as Deputy Manager and as Manager (Research) w.e.f. 1.4.2006. 3. Petitioner being aggrieved with the advertisement No. PER/4/1990 (Annexure P-3) issued by the respondents, inviting applications for the few posts in its Corporate Office and existing/future Projects/Units. Vide aforesaid advertisement; respondents also invited application for the post of Research Officer. Perusal of the advertisement suggests that a person with M.Sc in Chemistry or Physics was eligible to apply for the aforesaid posts. Petitioner alleged that a person with M.Sc in Chemistry or physics with experience in the field of Concrete Technology and Soil Mechanics cannot be termed to be a fit person to work in the said field. Petitioner also alleged that the respondents solely with a view to help their favourites, issued Rules/Procedure of promotion policy (Annexure P-4), wherein for the post in Research Wing, qualification of M.Sc from a recognized university has been prescribed. Petitioner averred that for the job assigned to the research cadre, employees of the Corporation, who are performing their duties in Concrete Technology and Soil Mechanics apart from maintenance and up-keep of machines, are fit to be appointed as Research Officer. 4. Petitioner with a view to substantiate his claim also placed on record communication issued by the Ministry of Energy, Department of Power, New Delhi(Annexure P-1), wherein nature of job assigned to the Research cadre employees of the corporation is prescribed. Petitioner specifically averred that perusal of Annexure P-1 clearly suggests that a person with M.Sc in Chemistry from any recognized university cannot be held eligible for the post of Research Officer, as advertised vide Annexure P-3. Petitioner specifically averred that perusal of Annexure P-1 clearly suggests that a person with M.Sc in Chemistry from any recognized university cannot be held eligible for the post of Research Officer, as advertised vide Annexure P-3. He specifically invited the attention of the Court to Annexure P-1 and submitted that if clause No. 2 of Annexure P-3, whereby qualification of M.Sc in Chemistry or Physics have been provided for the post of Research Officer is perused, it is crystal clear that qualification prescribed by the respondents is absurd and a person having M.Sc in Botany or Zoology are not fit person to be appointed as Research Officer. He invited the attention of this Court to the letter issued by Ministry of Energy (Annexure P-2), which provides that posts of Research Officer in Hydro-electric project are required to be filled up on the basis of qualification prescribed i.e. B.E. (Civil) or M.Sc/B.Sc in Chemistry and Physics with relative experience. Petitioner further averred that without proper application of mind and by putting national interest in jeopardy respondents issued advertisement No. 4/90, inviting application for Research Officer, wherein person having M.Sc in Chemistry or Physics with the experience in the field of Concrete Technology have been held eligible. Petitioner also averred that the respondents solely with a view to help their favourites issued/changed rules/procedures of promotion policy further by making provisions that post in researching can be filled on the basis of qualification i.e. M.Sc from a recognized university. Petitioner specifically averred that in view of the specific nature of job in Hydro-electric projects, specifically in the Research wing, where the person concerned is to deal with the Concrete Technology and Soil Mechanics, requisite qualification in law can only be B.E. (Civil) and any attempt on the part of the petitioner to fill up the post of Research Officer on the basis of qualification prescribed vide Annexure P-3 cannot be held to be justifiable. 5. Perusal of Annexure P-5, suggests that petitioner being aggrieved with the action of the respondents made detailed representation to the respondents to review the qualification criteria laid in N.H.P.C revised policy effective w.e.f. 1.1.1997. 5. Perusal of Annexure P-5, suggests that petitioner being aggrieved with the action of the respondents made detailed representation to the respondents to review the qualification criteria laid in N.H.P.C revised policy effective w.e.f. 1.1.1997. Careful perusal of Annexure P-5, clearly suggests that petitioner in support of his contention also supplied number of documents, perusal whereof certainly suggests that in the field of Concrete Technology and Soil Mechanics, B.E.(Civil) or M.Sc/B.Sc with relative experience is professional qualification for the post of Research Officer. 6. Respondents by way of detailed reply submitted that NHPC has framed “a Promotion Policy for its Executives” after considering all the factors including the responsibilities to a particular post. Respondents further submitted that minimum qualification for each post has been prescribed after detailed deliberation keeping in view of the particular post and, as such, petitioner has no right, whatsoever, to agitate against the policy as well as inclusion of particular educational qualification simply because he himself does not possess such qualification. Respondents further submitted that the petitioner have already got different promotions under the said Promotion Policy i.e. upto the level of Manager and as such he cannot be allowed to allege that said policy is illegal and unjustified. Respondents also submitted that it is for the respondents to decide as to what should be the prerequisites for a particular promotion and petitioner has no right whatsoever to suggest that what qualification should be included in the relevant Recruitment and Promotion Rules for Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC). Respondents also averred that since petitioner has not challenged particular clause of the promotion policy, wherein qualifications and pre-requisites for promotions to the higher post have been prescribed, he cannot be allowed to challenge particular clause of the promotion policy to his advantage. 7. Respondents also refuted the claim of the petitioner that the work of Research discipline is only confined to Civil works, whereas research in respondents corporation includes quality control activities like sampling and testing of construction materials, study of mix design, preparation and up-keeping of quality control records at different stages of development of records etc. Respondents further submitted that samples are generally tested by the third parties in NHPC. Respondents further submitted that samples are generally tested by the third parties in NHPC. Besides this, person with qualification of M.Sc with Botany and Zoology can be engaged in the study of Environmental impact of Hydro electric project, environmental conservation, Conservation of Biodiversity, Social Development study, Catchment Area Treatment, Restoration and rehabilitation of Project Affected Families, Compensatory Afforestation, Green Belt Development, Fist and other living creatures like, Flora- Fauna, Management of Landscaping and Restoration of Construction sites, Herbal Park Development, Dumping/Quarry site management etc.. Respondents also submitted that since respondents (NHPC) is aiming to secure benefits of clean Development Mechanism (CDM), therefore, the services of Research Officer with Botany and Zoology are also required. It is also stated in the reply that NHPC has separate cadre of Civil Engineers and Research Officer and their services are utilized as per their requirements. Hence, prayer for seeking direction against the respondents to include the qualification of AMIE for Offices in the Research wing cannot be held to be justified and deserves to be rejected out rightly. 8. Respondents also stated that the representation filed by the petitioner was duly considered by NHPC vide Annexure R-2 and R-3 and decision of NHPC was communicated to the petitioner. Respondents also submitted that qualifications prescribed by it for the post of Research Officer are directly connected/concerned with the post in question and same cannot be changed to facilitate the promotion of the petitioner, who admittedly does not possess requisite qualification for further promotion in Research Cadre. Respondents also denied prescribed qualification of M.Sc from recognized university is contrary to the public interest. 9. I have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and have carefully gone through the record made available. 10. During proceedings of the case, this Court was informed that the petitioner has already retired from the services and perusal of records suggest that no stay was granted by this court qua Annexure P-3. Since no stay, whatsoever, was granted by this Court at the time of admission of this petition, respondents-corporation has already acted on the basis of the advertisement issued by the department for appointments of various posts including Research Officer. Since petitioner has already retired from service, no effective relief as have been prayed in the writ petition can be granted to him by this Court. Since petitioner has already retired from service, no effective relief as have been prayed in the writ petition can be granted to him by this Court. Moreover, if at this stage, this Court comes to the conclusion that the minimum qualification prescribed by the respondents-Corporation for appointment to the post of Research Officer/ Deputy Manager in the Research Wing is not in conformity with the nature of job/responsibility to the post in question, petitioner would not be benefited in any manner at this stage, especially when he stands retired. 11. However after perusing the detailed representation filed by the petitioner as well as reply thereto given by the respondents-Corporation, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the respondents-corporation has rejected the representation of the petitioner in very slip shod manner without any application of mind. Bare perusal of Annexure R-2, suggests that respondents have not assigned any reason, whatsoever, while rejecting the contentions of the petitioner, which was fully substantiated by placing/ citing instructions/ examples of other government departments as well as undertakings. Respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioner has only informed that they are not in a position to consider the request for relaxation in specification for the post of Research Officer in the scale of Rs. 700-1300. Perusal of Annexures R-1 & R-2, nowhere demonstrate that respondents-NHPC actually dealt with each and every aspect of the matter raised by the petitioner in his representation. Moreover, no opportunity of being heard was ever afforded to the petitioner before passing of the order. 12. But as has been noticed above that the petitioner stands retired from services, no fruitful purpose would be served in case respondents are directed to re-consider the representation at this stage. 13. Undoubtedly, it is prerogative of rule making authority or appointing authority to prescribe mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment and, as such, action of respondents-corporation for the prescribed qualification for particular post cannot be faulted. 14. In this regard reliance is placed upon Chandigarh Administration through the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Chandigarh vs. Usha Kheterpal Waie and others, 2011 (9) SCC 645 , wherein it was held as under:- “22. It is now well settled that it is for the rule-making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. It is now well settled that it is for the rule-making authority or the appointing authority to prescribe the mode of selection and minimum qualification for any recruitment. The courts and tribunals can neither prescribe the qualifications nor entrench upon the power of the authority concerned to long as the qualifications prescribed by the employer is reasonably relevant and has a rational nexus with the functions and duties attached to the post and are not violate of any provision of the Constitution, statute and rules. (See J. Ranga Swamy vs. Govt. of A.P. (1990) 1 SCC 288 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 76 and P.U. Joshi vs. Accountant General, (2003) 2 SCC 632 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 191. In the absence of any rules, under Article 309 or statute, the appellant had the power to appoint under its general power of administration and prescribed such eligibility criteria as it is considered to be necessary and reasonable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prescription of PhD is unreasonable. 15. Further Hon’ble Apex Court in P.U. Joshi and others vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and others, 2003 (2) SCC 632, has held as under:- “We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substruction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substruction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service.” In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.