ORDER : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. Present petition is filed seeking prayers for quashing and setting aside the decision of respondent to withdraw the appointment of the petitioner as part time sweeper as revealed in the letter dated 20.02.2008. Brief facts of the present petition are that the name of the present petitioner was registered with Employment Exchange Department, Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad which sent his name to respondent bank pursuant to which the petitioner was called for an interview on 16.01.2008 for the post of part time sweeper at the Ashram Road branch of respondent bank. 2. The petitioner appeared at the interview. At the time of the interview, the petitioner carried with him the relevant documents including his 10th standard pass mark-sheet which were examined by the authorities. The petitioner met the eligibility criteria and cleared the interview. The respondent Bank vide letter dated 07.02.2008, informed the petitioner about his appointment on the post of part time sweeper in the subordinate cadre in the Ashram Road branch of respondent bank. 3. The petitioner complied with the formalities as mentioned in the said letter and provided original copies of the documents sought in the said letter. The original 10th standard pass mark-sheet was also provided to the authorities. The petitioner personally went to the office of respondent to provide the documents. The petitioner was made to sit and thereafter was asked to come on the next day. The petitioner went everyday from 18.02.2008 to 20.02.2008, however, he was neither allowed to sign the muster roll nor he was allowed to work. 4. The petitioner stated that on 20.02.2008, he was told that he could not be given appointment as his qualification was 10th standard pass whereas the eligibility criteria of respondent for the job was 9th standard pass. On the same day, he received a letter under which his appointment was withdrawn. 5. Learned advocate, Mr. Jaydeep Rajput appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the action of respondent is unjust as the only reason given by respondent is that the petitioner does not possess eligibility criteria for the post of part time sweeper which is 10th fail. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner should not have been denied the appointment only on the basis that he possessed higher qualification (i.e. 10th pass). Learned advocate, Mr. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner should not have been denied the appointment only on the basis that he possessed higher qualification (i.e. 10th pass). Learned advocate, Mr. Jaydeep Rajput has also submitted that respondent bank as per requisition, Form sent to the Employment Exchange prescribed the essential qualification as "5th standard pass and should not be matriculate" for the post of part time sweeper. He has submitted that as since the petitioner possessed higher qualification for the post of part time sweeper the bank thought it fit not to appoint him. In view of the said submission he has stated that the bank has rightly concluded that the petitioner does not deserve to be appointed to the post of part time sweeper. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Pushparani, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 242 : (2008 AIR SCW 6564). The Supreme Court has held in the aforesaid judgment that matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of employees fall within the exclusive domain of employer. 6. In view of the aforesaid submission, he has urged that the present petition does not require any interference from this court. 7. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 8. The established fact suggests that the petitioner is denied the appointment on the post of part time sweeper only because he is 10th standard pass. This court fails to understand the nexus of duties to be carried out as part time sweeper with the qualifications prescribed by respondent bank of possessing 5th standard pass to non-matriculate. 9. There cannot be any cavil on the proposition of law that the prescribing qualifications for a post falls within the exclusive domain of employer, however, the power of juridical review can be exercised if it is shown that the action of the employer is arbitrary or it is vitiated by the mala fide. 10. At this juncture, it will be apposite to refer the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand v. Deepchandra Tivari, reported in (2013) 15 S.C.C. 557, that, "11. 10. At this juncture, it will be apposite to refer the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand v. Deepchandra Tivari, reported in (2013) 15 S.C.C. 557, that, "11. We are conscious of the principle that when particular qualifications are prescribed for a post, the candidature of a candidate possessing higher qualification cannot be rejected on that basis. No doubt, normal rule would be that candidate with higher qualification is deemed to fulfill the lower qualification prescribed for a post. But that higher qualification has to be in the same channel. Further this rule will be subject to an exception. Where the prescription of a particular qualification is found to be relevant for discharging the functions of that post and at the same time, the Government is able to demonstrate that for want of the said qualification a candidate may not be suitable for the post, even if the possesses a "better" qualification but that "better" qualification has not relevance with the functions attached with the post". 11. Thus, the respondent Bank is required to demonstrate that the better qualification of the petitioner has no relevance to his duties. 12. In the present case, required qualification for the post of part time sweeper as prescribed by respondent bank is minimum 5th standard and maximum 10th fail or non-matriculate, whereas the petitioner is 10th pass. 13. Learned advocate, Mr. Mishra was unable to point out any adverse effect on the duties of part time sweeper, if the petitioner who is matriculate, is appointed on the post of part time sweeper. He was unable to point out any relevance with the duties attached to the post of part time sweeper and the qualification of the present petitioner. In view of mat, I am of the considered opinion that respondent bank should not have rejected the candidature of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner possessed higher qualification, that too after he had cleared the recruitment process. 14. The impugned letter dated 28.02.2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent bank is hereby directed to reconsider the case of the present petitioner on the post of part time sweeper keeping in mind the observation made by this court. 15. Necessary order shall be passed within a period of one month from today. 14. The impugned letter dated 28.02.2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent bank is hereby directed to reconsider the case of the present petitioner on the post of part time sweeper keeping in mind the observation made by this court. 15. Necessary order shall be passed within a period of one month from today. In case if there is no other adverse factors against the present petitioner, he shall be appointed on the post of part time sweeper and his pay-scale and service benefits shall be granted notion-ally w.e.f. 28.02.2008. With the aforesaid directions, present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.