ORDER : T. Rajani, J. 1. This writ petition is filed pursuant to the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the recruitment notification, dated 29.7.2019, for the posts of Energy Assistants (Junior Linemen Grade-II) by prescribing the total marks obtained in SSC as a selection criteria thereby making the service Weightage marks & ITI marks redundant in Paragraph 9 of the notification and not permitting the use of latest technology for pole climbing test, when they are permitting the use of the said equipment by the regular staff JLM/ALM etc., of the 1st respondent Company, granting only two weeks time for submission of the online applications, in not providing the weightage marks to the candidates, who are working in the other power utilities like A.P. Transco Limited, A.P. Genco Limited etc. and the act of the respondents 16 to 20 in not issuing the Service Certificates to the petitioners on the ground that no weightage was provided to the outsourcing personnel working in A.P. Transco Limited, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri Chandraiah Sunkara, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri S. Sri Ram, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents. 3. Though several grievances are expressed in the writ petition, the only grievance that was agitated before this Court is that the ITI, which was made as one of the essential qualifications, is not given any weightage and the marks secured in the ITI are not considered. 4. The Counsel for the petitioners contends that the ITI, being the basic qualification alongwith SSC, also should be considered for taking the marks obtained by the petitioners in the ITI as basis. In this case, the respondents, though in the notification specified that the educational qualifications required for the post of Junior Linemen are SSC, it also specified that it should be alongwith ITI Qualification in Electrical Trade/Wiremen trade etc. But the marks obtained by the candidates in the SSLC/SSC/10th class alone are being considered for short listing the candidates thereby aggrieving the petitioners, who hold an ITI qualification, to the extent of depriving them of an opportunity of competing for the post. The contention is that if the ITI marks are also taken into consideration, the candidates holding ITI qualification and better marks in ITI would be standing at an advantageous position to the candidates, who secured good marks in SSC. The contention is that if the ITI marks are also taken into consideration, the candidates holding ITI qualification and better marks in ITI would be standing at an advantageous position to the candidates, who secured good marks in SSC. The further contention is that it is the ITI, which is more relevant for the post of linemen than the SSC, as the job of linemen requires technical skills, which can be possessed only by an ITI qualified person. 5. The counter argument to the said contention, extended by the learned Advocate General, is that many of the Institutes offering It is do not have recognition from NCVT; private It is follow different nomenclature in awarding marks for both practical and subjects; many of the students from private It is completed their courses without attending practicals and there are enormous complaints on the said aspects; in the earlier notifications also, it came to the knowledge that several fake ITI Certificates are produced to have employment. It is taking into account all the above facts that the respondents decided to consider 10th class marks alone for further valuation for the selection process. It is also with the object of eradicating unemployment in the rural areas that 10th class marks alone are taken into consideration. The respondents have decided to call the candidates at a particular ratio and for the purpose of selecting the candidates as per the said ratio they have taken the criteria of the SSC marks. The basic qualification, as can be understood from the notification, is SSC or equivalent and that with ITI is the requirement. The Advocate General, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others, (2019) 6 SCC 362 , contends that the Court cannot lay down conditions of eligibility and delve into issue with regard to the desirable qualifications. The Supreme Court in the above said judgment held that essential qualification for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide according to needs and the nature of work. He may also prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. The Supreme Court in the above said judgment held that essential qualification for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide according to needs and the nature of work. He may also prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. The Supreme Court while laying down the role of the Court in exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review, held that it cannot, in a garb of judicial review, sit over the judgment of appointing authority to decide what is best for employer and interpret the conditions of advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same. It also held that the questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. Judicial Review can be done only if the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear. The Court cannot sit in judgment over the same, is the purport of the judgment of the Supreme Court. It cannot be said that short listing of candidates on the basis of the SSC marks is arbitrary in the light of the contentions made with regard to awarding marks in the ITIs. 6. In this case, as submitted by the learned Advocate General, taking into considering the aspects pertaining to the grant of ITI Certificates, they have decided to take SSC as the basic qualification for short listing the candidates. 7. Hence, in view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous appositions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.