JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate, for Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. In this petition, the petitioner wants that after conclusion of written test (in June 2016) and after completion of interview (in June 2016) this Court should interfere in the matter of selection/eligibility criteria and to set aside the criteria determined by the respondent Reserve Bank of India [hereinafter referred to as "RBI"] for the purpose of selection of employees. 2.1 The petitioner also wants that this Court should interfere with employer's decision about selection and eligibility criterion and qualification standard and for the employer namely respondent RBI and the Court should set-aside the qualification/eligibility criteria determined by RBI. 3. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter-alia, that:- "25(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the eligibility criteria mentioned in advertisement No. 6A/2015-16 dated 11.04.2016 issued by the RBI for the post of Assistant Manager (Rajabhasha) in Grade-A (at ANNEXURE-B hereto) and further be pleased to quash and set aside decision dated 08.06.2016 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner (at ANNEXURE-E hereto) and also further be pleased to direct that the qualification of the petitioner shall be considered as eligible for the purpose of the aforesaid requirement." 4. It appears that RBI decided to appoint officers/employees on different posts, one of them was Assistant Manager (Rajbhasha). 4.1 The respondent RBI, as any other employer, assessed its requirements for the posts where recruitment was to be made. According to its requirements, RBI decided the minimum requirements/eligibility criteria and qualifications in respect of each of the posts. 4.2 Obviously, the respondent RBI, as any other employer, would decide the qualifying/ eligibility criteria having regard to the nature of posts, job description for each post, corresponding and required minimum experience and/or minimum educational qualification and other qualifying criteria. 4.3 Then RBI issued advertisement inviting applications for the posts (including above mentioned post) from eligible/qualified candidates. 4.4 The petitioner, who is about 29 years old and is presently employed as Manager (Rajbhasha) with Bank of India, seems to have submitted an application in response to the advertisement issued by the respondent RBI. 4.5 It appears that more than about 115 persons had submitted applications for the said post [viz. 4.4 The petitioner, who is about 29 years old and is presently employed as Manager (Rajbhasha) with Bank of India, seems to have submitted an application in response to the advertisement issued by the respondent RBI. 4.5 It appears that more than about 115 persons had submitted applications for the said post [viz. Assistant Manager (Rajbhasha)] in response to the said advertisement. The petitioner was one of them. 4.6 It further appears that after preliminary screening, the respondent RBI invited 118 candidates for the written test, which was conducted on 11.4.2006. 4.7 According to the petitioner, about 28 persons succeeded in the said written test. The petitioner was one of the candidates who succeeded in the written test. 4.8 Thereafter, the candidates who succeeded in the written test were called for the interview on 24.6.2016. However, before the interview were to be held, the petitioner was informed on 17.6.2016 that he does not fulfill the eligibility criteria, inasmuch as he does not possess the requisite educational qualification and that therefore, he cannot be considered eligible candidate for the interview. Accordingly, his candidature was dropped. 5. In this background, the petitioner has now, i.e. after having submitted application in response to the advertisement and after having participated in the written test, taken out this petition and challenged the qualification criteria prescribed by the respondent RBI in its advertisement. 6. In aforesaid factual backdrop, learned advocate for the petitioner alleged that though the respondent RBI has offered four options so far as educational qualification is concerned, however, three out of four courses are such, which are not offered by any colleges. Another ground on which the petitioner challenged the qualification criterion is that the advertisement is designed for selecting the persons only from selected States. The third ground on which the petitioner assailed the advertisement is that the educational qualification in the earlier advertisement was different than what is prescribed in present advertisement. 7. I have heard learned counsel and I have also considered material on record including the advertisements. The third ground on which the petitioner assailed the advertisement is that the educational qualification in the earlier advertisement was different than what is prescribed in present advertisement. 7. I have heard learned counsel and I have also considered material on record including the advertisements. 7.1 The educational qualification/options prescribed by the RBI as part of eligibility criteria reads thus:- "(I) Educational Qualifications (as on 01-04-2016): Essential: (i) Second Class Master's Degree in Hindi/Hindi Translation, with English as Core/Elective/Major subject during all the years of Bachelor's Degree level; OR (ii) Second Class Master's Degree in English with Hindi as Core/Elective/Major subject during all the years of Bachelor's Degree level; OR (iii) Second Class Master's Degree in Sanskrit/Economics/Commerce with English and Hindi as Core/Elective/Major subject during all the years of Bachelor's Degree level. (In lieu of a subject of Hindi at Bachelor's Degree level, one may have recognized Hindi qualification equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree); OR (iv) Master's Degree in both English and Hindi/Hindi Translation, of which one must be Second Class. Please also refer item 6 below on note on educational qualifications. Desirable: Knowledge of bi-lingual work processing." 8. It is not in dispute that in the impugned advertisement as many as four options were prescribed/offered by the RBI and it was clarified that the person/candidate who possessed one, out of four educational criteria, would be eligible for selection process. 8.1 So far as the petitioner is concerned, he possesses Master Degree with Sanskrit. 8.2 According to the criteria prescribed by the RBI, the candidate who possess Master's Degree with Sanskrit or Economics or Commerce with English and Hindi must have cleared Bachelor's Degree with "Hindi as core or elective or major subject during all the years of Bachelor's Degree level". 8.3 According to the petitioner, though the requirement for clearing Bachelor's Degree with Hindi as core subject was prescribed earlier also, the condition that the candidate should have cleared Bachelor's course with Hindi as core subject in all years of Bachelor's Degree was not the prescribed requirement and the such requirement is prescribed for the first time in the impugned advertisement. So as to illustrate his said submission, learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the advertisement issued in 2014-15 wherein the prescribed eligibility criterion for the educational qualification was as under:- "(I) Educational Qualifications (as on 01-03-2015): Essential: (i) Second Class Master's Degree in Hindi/Hindi Translation, with English as one of the subjects at Bachelor's Degree level; OR (ii) Second Class Master's Degree in English with Hindi as one of the subjects at Bachelor's Degree level; or (iii) Second Class Master's Degree in Sanskrit/Economics/Commerce with English and Hindi as subjects at Bachelor's Degree level. (In lieu of a subject of Hindi at Bachelor's Degree level, one may have recognized Hindi qualification equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree); OR (iv) Master's Degree in both English and Hindi/Hindi Translation, of which one must be Second Class. Please also refer item 5 below on note on educational qualifications. Desirable: Knowledge of bi-lingual work processing." 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner does not possess any of the other options offered by the RBI inasmuch as he has not passed/cleared Master's Degree in Hindi/Hindi translation with English as core subject (in all years) or he has not obtained Master's degree in English with Hindi as core subject (in all years) or Master's degree in both English and Hindi but he has passed Master's Degree with Sanskrit. In this event, he must have cleared Bachelor's degree in Hindi as core subject in all years. 9.1 The petitioner conveniently overlooks that in respect of other two options/alternatives the emphases is on Hindi and English language because that is requirement and need for the job/post. 9.2 The very fact that about 28 persons succeeded in the written test and qualified for interview and many of them were invited for interview go to suggest and indicate that sufficient number of candidates who possess prescribed criteria and fulfill the requirements were for interview for the post of Assistant Manager (Rajabhasha). 10. In view of this Court, the petition deserves not to be entertained for more than one reasons. [a] First:- The petitioner has taken out the petition at very belated stage, i.e. after the process of interview is concluded. 10. In view of this Court, the petition deserves not to be entertained for more than one reasons. [a] First:- The petitioner has taken out the petition at very belated stage, i.e. after the process of interview is concluded. (i) In this context, it is pertinent that at the time when the petitioner submitted his application/candidature, he had taken into account the advertisement and the eligibility criteria and necessary qualifications mentioned in the advertisement and that therefore, even at that stage, the petitioner was aware about the prescription with regard to minimum educational qualification and he was also aware about the fact that the respondent RBI had provided four options and also that he did not possess the prescribed qualification. (ii) With such conscious knowledge, he participated in the selection process and appeared in the written test. (iii) More important is the fact that at that stage, he did not find anything objectionable in the advertisement and/or in the prescribed criteria. (iv) At that stage, the petitioner was also aware about the so-called change with regard to education criteria allegedly mentioned in the subject advertisement as compared to the advertisement issued in previous year. (v) However, at any stage until the petitioner was informed by the respondent RBI that he was not eligible as per the prescribed qualification, he had not questioned the prescription with regard to eligibility criteria and now, when the interview is concluded, the petitioner has taken out this petition. (vi) Therefore, the petition which is taken out at such belated stage of the selection process and that too after conclusion of interview and after having participated in the selection process (at the stage of written test) is not maintainable and does not deserve to be entertained. [b] Second:-It is not even the case of the petitioner that the criteria mentioned in the advertisement is contrary to the Rules of RBI and/or that it does not have any co-relation with the post or nature of job and that it is unconnected with or irrelevant for the post and the job. [c] Third :- The Court does not enter into the arena of determining eligibility criteria and/or in the process of determining the justifiability and propriety of selection/qualifying standards and eligibility criteria prescribed by the employer for selecting employees. [c] Third :- The Court does not enter into the arena of determining eligibility criteria and/or in the process of determining the justifiability and propriety of selection/qualifying standards and eligibility criteria prescribed by the employer for selecting employees. (i) In this context, it is pertinent that the matters connected with eligibility criteria including minimum experience, upper age limit, minimum education qualification, subjects which the candidates opted for at graduation/mater level and subject which would be essential for the post/job (e.g. Hindi language for the post of lecturer/professor in Hindi language or for the post of Hindi Translator or Microbiology for the post of laboratory technician/laboratory assistant) are matters in the realm of employer's discretion and decision and the said matters are not within purview of judicial review, unless legal mala-fides or discrimination or breach of statutory/applicable Rules is apparent on the fact of the record. (ii) It is also relevant to take into account that when the employer commences selection and recruitment process, he assesses his requirement after taking into account the job description of the posts where the appointments are to be made. After taking into account the nature of the post and nature of the job as well as type and range of functions which the selected employee will have to perform, the employer decides the qualifications and eligibility criteria which the selected candidate/employee must fulfill and the minimum experience which the selected candidate must possess. The employer also takes into account the upper age limit of the person to be appointed for the post in question. The best person to decide these aspects i.e. the requisite qualifications/eligibility criteria for selected candidate/employee, is the employer and the matters related to eligibility criteria are in the realm of the employer's discretion. The Court is not competent and would not be justified, to decide the requirements of the job/post and/or eligibility criteria and qualifications. (iii) Therefore, unless there is ex-facie legal mala-fides or apparent discriminator or breach of statutory Rules in the matter of determining the eligibility criteria, the Court would not interfere with the employer's decision in the matter of deciding and determining the eligibility criteria. (iii) Therefore, unless there is ex-facie legal mala-fides or apparent discriminator or breach of statutory Rules in the matter of determining the eligibility criteria, the Court would not interfere with the employer's decision in the matter of deciding and determining the eligibility criteria. (iv) In present case, the ultimate effect of the relief prayed for by the petitioner is that the Court should set-aside the criteria determined by the respondent RBI and the Court should decide as to whether the qualifications or eligibility criteria determined by RBI are proper for the post or not. These matters are in the realm of the employer's discretion and that therefore, the petition does not deserve to be entertained. The Court would not enter into the said arena and the Court would not substitute Court's view for the employer's prerogative (i.e. to decide the qualification standards and eligibility criterion). (v) The Court would be ill-equipped to decide the essentials/requirements of the post/job and/or to decide whether particular eligibility criteria is proper for the post in question or not. [d] Fourth:- This is not a case where the RBI prescribed only one criterion and that the criterion was tailor made for selecting any particular candidate or with a view to eliminating any particular candidate/category of candidates. (i) The petitioner being aware about the legal position, has come out with the allegation that the educational qualifications/criteria are designed in such a manner which will benefit the candidates from particular State. The said allegation is not only misconceived but is without substance and merits and is baseless. (ii) It is necessary to note that the post in question is Assistant Manager (Rajbhasha). The respondent RBI wants to appoint an officer viz. Assistant Manager who would be essentially dealing with Hindi language and would be required to undertake several jobs, including the work of translation from Hindi language to other languages and vice versa. Therefore, profound and pervasive knowledge of Hindi language would be primary requirement. The respondent RBI wants to appoint an officer viz. Assistant Manager who would be essentially dealing with Hindi language and would be required to undertake several jobs, including the work of translation from Hindi language to other languages and vice versa. Therefore, profound and pervasive knowledge of Hindi language would be primary requirement. (iii) In such circumstances, if the respondent RBI, emphasizes or concentrates on Hindi language more particularly if RBI after gaining experience from post advertisements (by mentioning particular educational qualifications in past) reached to the conclusion that persons appointed on such post must have proficiency in Hindi language which can be ensured by prescribing the requirement/condition that the candidate must have passed graduation with Hindi language in all years (or must possess Master's degree in Hindi/Hindi translation or Master's in Hindi and English) then, such decision cannot be faulted nor can be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory or unjust. Such decision cannot be made subject matter of judicial review because it is purely and exclusively in realm of employer's discretion. (iv) It is also pertinent that the petitioner has not placed any material on record to demonstrate qualifications of other candidates and there is nothing on record to even indicate, much less establish that the candidates who possess the prescribed eligibility criteria are only from particular State and/or that there is not a single candidate who possesses prescribed qualification and fulfills the eligibility criteria and yet they have been called for interview and it is only the petitioner who is picked up and disqualified for interview process. (v) Further, it is also relevant to take into account that impugned alternative/option (so far as educational qualification) is not prescribed as the "compulsory requirement". Actually, the said criteria or alternative is merely one of the four options or alternative offered and prescribed by the respondent RBI. (vi) If the candidate fulfills one of the four options he would be eligible for selection process. However, when the petitioner does not fulfill even one of the four options, then, he has no base or justification to support his allegation that the prescription with regard to educational qualification are discriminatory or arbitrary. Even otherwise, when the petitioner has failed to place on record qualifications of other candidates, the allegations by the petitioner cannot be accepted or entertained. Even otherwise, when the petitioner has failed to place on record qualifications of other candidates, the allegations by the petitioner cannot be accepted or entertained. (vi) In present case, the respondent RBI as an employer prescribed as many as four options so far as minimum education qualification - as a part of eligibility criteria - is concerned. Four alternative were prescribed for deciding the eligibility and for selecting most suitable candidate. In this background, merely on the basis of the petitioner's allegation that other subjects are not offered by the colleges, the Court cannot interfere in the matter and in absence of any material which may bring out education qualification of other candidates the Court cannot assume that any one (or more candidates) out of 28 candidates who succeeded in the written test (or even the said 128 candidates who were called for written test) did not possess any of the options/criteria prescribed by the Bank. There is no allegation to the said effect. Further, a belated petition by a candidate who, being aware about qualifying/eligibility criteria, participated in the selection process till the stage of written test does not deserve to be entertained and is not maintainable. In this context, it is relevant to take into account observations by Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision in case of- (a) Union of India & Ors. v. S. Vinodh Kumar & Ors., (2007) 8 SCC 100 Hon’ble Apex Court while referring the decision in case of Ashwani Kumar Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2003) 11 SCC 584 , State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Copra, (2007) 8 SCC 161 as well as the decision in case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Harish Kumar Purohit & Ors., (2003) 5 SCC 480 and other decisions, observed, inter-alia, that:- "14. It is now a well settled principle of law that even wait listed candidates have no legal right to be appointed. (See Ashwani Kumar Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission and others, (2003) 11 SCC 584 and State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Jagdish Chopra, 2007 (10) SCALE 470). 15. It was for the appellant to decide as to whether the posts were to be dereserved or carried forwarded. (See Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Another v. Harish Kumar Purohit and Others, (2003) 5 SCC 480 ). 16. In any view of the matter, the respondents appeared in a competitive examination. v. Jagdish Chopra, 2007 (10) SCALE 470). 15. It was for the appellant to decide as to whether the posts were to be dereserved or carried forwarded. (See Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Another v. Harish Kumar Purohit and Others, (2003) 5 SCC 480 ). 16. In any view of the matter, the respondents appeared in a competitive examination. The posts advertised were public posts. They did not have any vested right for appointment. It is well known that even selected candidates do not have legal right in this behalf. (See Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India, 1991 (2) SCR 567 : (1991) 3 SCC 47 , Asha Kaul (Mrs.) and Another v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, (1993) 2 SCC 573 , All India SC and ST Employees Association and Another v. A. Arthur Jeen and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 380 , Food Corporation of India and others v. Bhanu Lodh and others, (2005) 3 SCC 618 )." (b) Sadananda Halo & Ors. v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh & Ors., (2008) 4 SCC 619 ], Hon’ble Apex Court, observed, inter-alia, that:- "7. The selections were ultimately held between 7th to 11th December, 2004. Though, initially the candidates belonging to one particular District could take part in the Recruitment Rallies for the posts of that District only, afterwards the Government by its letter dated 16.11.2004 conveyed the decision that the restrictions relating to District-wise selection of candidates being limited to the candidates of those Districts only would not apply to the recruitment of the Armed Police Battalion but would hold good only for the posts advertised for the District Executive Force. 8. In the writ petitions various challenges were made before the learned Single Judge they were, inter-alia, (i) not following the procedure in the employment notice; (ii) non maintenance of necessary Registers; (iii) selection of the candidates without their taking part in the selection process or the selection of under-qualified and over-aged candidates; (iv) selection of those candidates who could not qualify the physical tests; (v) interpolations/tampering in the allotted marks to the candidates; (vi) political interference in support of some of the selected candidates; (vii) allotment of 50 marks for the personal interview segment as also (ix) consideration of huge number of candidates within a span of only 9 days. In short the whole selection was dubbed as farcical. In short the whole selection was dubbed as farcical. Learned Single Judge cancelled the entire selection in respect of 15 Districts out of 26 Districts and that is how the appeals were filed by the selected candidates as has already been clarified by us. Now we are concerned only with the selections of three Districts named above. (c) University of Cochin, Represented by its Registrar, University of Cochin v. N.S. Kanjoonjamma & Ors., (1997) 4 SCC 426 , Hon’ble Apex Court observed, inter-alia, that:- "Having participated in the selection, she is estopped to challenge the correctness of the procedure." (d) Madanlal & Ors. v. State of J & K & Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 486 , Hon’ble Apex Court after referring the decision in case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 Supp. SCC 285, observed, inter-alia, that:- 9. ...In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner." For aforesaid reasons, the petition does not deserve to be entertained. Foregoing reasons establish that any ground to interfere with the selection process - and that too at such belated stage - is not made out. In the result, any ground to interfere with the eligibility criterion, more particularly the educational qualification prescribed by the RBI for selection process is not made out. The petition fails and is accordingly rejected.