JUDGMENT Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. - Heard Mr. R. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M.D. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 being the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Welfare of Plain Tribe and Backward Classes Department. 2. Considering the nature of the order to be passed and also considering the aspect that the interview pursuant to the impugned advertisement dated 10.01.2020 is fixed by today, we deem it appropriate to give a consideration to the matter without issuing notice to the respondents No.2 and 3. 3. The petitioner was engaged as Junior Assistant in the Thengal Kachari Autonomous Council, Assam at Titabor since January, 2007 and to that extent, a certificate had been issued by the Principal Secretary of the Thengal Kachari Autonomous Council on 17.01.2020. An advertisement was issued by the Principal Secretary of Thengal Kachari Autonomous Council inviting application, amongst others, for three posts of LDA in the Council. The educational and other qualifications for the post of LDA as provided in the advertisement is graduate/equivalent in any stream with computer knowledge. The petitioner is aggrieved by the advertisement dated 10.01.2020 stating that the respondent authorities are not allowing him to participate in the selection process although he had been working in the post of Junior Assistant since the year 2007. 4. We have put a specific query on the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what is the educational qualification of the petitioner. It is stated that he is HS passed. Prima facie it appears that the petitioner does not meet the educational qualification required as provided in the advertisement. But however, Mr. R. Phukan, learned counsel relies upon a pronouncement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ram Bhajan Das and Others -vs- Union of India and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 168 wherein, in paragraph-2 in exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court had provided that in view of the long services rendered by the petitioner therein, a direction was issued to the railway authorities to consider the petitioners therein, in case they otherwise eligible by ignoring the objection of qualification. 5. 5. We have perused the said judgment of the Supreme Court and has taken note of that firstly it was relief provided in the facts and circumstance of the matter before the Supreme Court and secondly, the Supreme Court exercised the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which is not available to the High Court in its exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. A contention is raised by the petitioner that he having served in the Council for a period of thirteen years, with the qualification that he had, the educational qualification prescribed in the advertisement is arbitrary. We are unable to accept the said contention of the petitioner and a qualification prescribed in an advertisement cannot be made subjected to the desire of any of the intending candidate as to what should be the required qualification. The petitioner may have been working for thirteen years with the qualification that he had but that by itself cannot bestow a legal right upon him to claim that the qualification prescribed must be as per his suitability, merely, because he was already in a temporary service in the organization without having a prescribed qualification. 7. From the said point of view, we do not find any infirmity in the advertisement dated 10.01.2020. However, considering the grievance raised by the petitioner that he has been working for thirteen years we leave it to the authorities to take their own decision on the claim of the petitioner and if the authorities are of the view that the petitioner can be provided any such relief that he is claiming, it would be open for the autonomous council to pass a reasoned order, if so advised. wxyz Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. zyxw