JUDGMENT : Abhinand Kumar Shavili, J. Both these Writ Appeals are being disposed of as common Judgment, as the issues raised in these Writ Appeals are one and the same. 2. Both these Writ Appeals have been filed aggrieved by the Common Order dated 07.04.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17336 of 2019 and Writ Petition No.15754 of 2019. 3. Heard Sri Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 152 of 2021, Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 652 of 2021, Sri D. Balakishan Rao, Standing counsel for the first respondent and Government Pleader for School Education Department for the second respondent and Sri N. Bhupal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent. 4. It has been contended by the appellants that they are fully eligible and qualified for the post of Principal and the respondents have issued a Notification No. 29 of 2017, dated 02-06-2017 inviting applications for the post of Principal (School) in the Residential Educational Institutions run by third respondent. The appellants have responded to the said notification and appellants have done fairly well in the selection process. However, the grievance of the appellants is that the respondents have rejected the cases of the appellants on the ground that the appellants are not having requisite experience to hold the post of Principal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants had contended that the educational qualifications prescribed for the post of Principal are as follows : “4) Educational Qualification: Applicants must possess the qualifications from a recognized University as detailed below or equivalent thereto and experience as specified in the relevant Bye Laws/Service Regulations indented by the Residential Educational Institutions Societies as on the Date of Notification. Post Code Name of the Post Educational Qualifications ad Experience 1. Principal (School) in Telangana Residential Educational institutions Society A. Academic Qualifications: i) A second class Master’s Degree (M.A./M.Sc/M.Com) or its equivalent from an institution recognized by the UGC, in the relevant (Annexure – A) school subject fro which the Post Graduate Teachers (PGT) are eligible with not less than 50% of marks in aggregate or it equivalent. ii) In case of SC/ST/BC/Differently abled candidates, the minimum marks shall be 45% iii) A B. Ed or equivalent degree from an institution recognized by the NCTE with the Teaching Methodology in the concerned subject. ii) In case of SC/ST/BC/Differently abled candidates, the minimum marks shall be 45% iii) A B. Ed or equivalent degree from an institution recognized by the NCTE with the Teaching Methodology in the concerned subject. B. Experience iv) A total teaching experience of not les than (5) yea as PFT/JL in any Government/Aided/Government recognized High School/Junior College and (3) years of administrative experience as Head Master/Principal of government/Aided/Government recognized High School/Junior College. C. Desirable Knowledge of Computer Applications 2. Principal (School) in Telangana Social Welfare Residential Educational) Institutions Society 3. Principal (School) in Mahatma Jothiba Phule Telangana Backward Classes Welfare Educational) Institutions Society 4. Principal (School) in Telangana Minorities Welfare Residential Educational) Institutions Society 5. Principal (School) in Telangana Tribal Welfare Residential Educational) Institutions Society 6. All the appellants are having requisite qualifications and only issue is that the appellants have requisite experience as prescribed in the notification. However, the appellants have experience gained prior to acquiring qualification in the relevant field and accordingly the appellants are entitled for consideration of their cases for appointment to the post of Principals as they fulfilled the educational qualifications prescribed in the notification. The learned Single Judge without appreciating any of the contention raised by the appellants, has rejected the cases of the appellants and dismissed the Writ Petitions by way of common order, dated 07-04-2021. Challenging the same, the present Writ Appeals are filed. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that a perusal of the qualifications notified in the notification would make it clear that one must have not less than eight years of teaching experience including not less than five years as PGT/Junior Lecturer in any Government/Aided/Government Recognized Residential School or Junior College and three years of administrative experience as Headmaster/Principal of Government/Aided/Government Recognized Residential School or Junior College and some of the appellants have experience in the degree colleges, which is not included, though it is not included specifically in the notification, higher teaching experience acquired in the degree colleges has to be included and it should be deemed that the appellants do posses the requisite qualifications, as notified by the respondents and the case of the appellants deserves to be considered for appointment to the post of Principal, if the appellants are coming within the zone of consideration as per the merit. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by directing the respondents to consider the case of the appellants for appointment to the post of Principal as notified in the Notification, dated 02-06-2017 and also set aside the rejection orders in respect of the appellants. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that the notification had categorically stated that one must have requisite qualification in the Junior College level or School level of various types of institutions and admittedly the appellants are not having requisite qualifications, as notified in the notification and appellant having participated in the selection process cannot turn around and challenge the rejection orders. Admittedly, the appellants are not possessing requisite qualifications, as notified in the notification. If at all the appellants are aggrieved by the notification, the appellants ought to have challenged the notification but having participated in the selection process, the appellants cannot turn around and challenge the rejection orders passed by the respondents stating that they are not eligible as they do not have requisite qualification, therefore, there are no merits and Writ Appeals are liable to be dismissed. 9. This Court, having considered the rival submissions of the parties, is of the considered view that the appellants are not having requisite qualifications as notified in the notification and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petitions with the following observations: “10. A teacher has to teach subject of his specialization and training. By studying Post Graduation in a subject or two, person acquires specialization in that subject(s). That is not enough to be successful as a Teacher in a High School. To be able to teach the students he must acquire the skill to teach the subject. He acquires such skill by studying B.Ed., with methodology in the same subject(s) he studied in Post Graduation. Thus, with Post Graduation and B.Ed., with same methodology, person can be able to acquire a command to teach the students on his subject of specialization and gains good experience. A Principal is required to perform administrative responsibilities and also required to teach. He should be a person to lead his team of teachers standing as an example. Thus, prescribing such requirement cannot be said as arbitrary and unconstitutional. 11. The employer, in his wisdom, wants only such candidates who can fulfill the eligibility criteria. A Principal is required to perform administrative responsibilities and also required to teach. He should be a person to lead his team of teachers standing as an example. Thus, prescribing such requirement cannot be said as arbitrary and unconstitutional. 11. The employer, in his wisdom, wants only such candidates who can fulfill the eligibility criteria. It is discernible from sub- paragraph (4), the purpose and object of prescribing the relevant eligibility criteria i.e., good academic record, long teaching experience with in-depth knowledge on teaching methodology and administrative experience makes a person complete man to fit into the assignment as Principal effortlessly and lead his team. 12. It is also apparent that the employers are very clear in their mind on the eligibility criteria required by a candidate. It is the prerogative of the employer to prescribe eligibility criteria. In exercise of power of judicial review the Court cannot trench into the discretion of the employer to determine the qualifications required to a post, go into the validity of the qualifications prescribed, hold those qualifications are not valid and substitute the qualifications, what it may think proper. Court cannot also hold the eligibility and/or experience gained by petitioners as equivalent/higher and rejection of their candidature as illegal. 13. The issue of eligibility vis-à-vis experience was considered by this Court in W.P.No.20104 of 2019. Having regard to the experience criteria prescribed in the recruitment notification, the Court upheld the decision of the Public Service Commission in not subjecting the petitioner therein for further selection process as the petitioner therein did not have requisite teaching experience after acquiring Post Graduation qualification even if the post of School Assistant was to be treated as equivalent. This Court held as under : “6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in P.Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka [ (2002) 4 SCC 578 ] to contend that it is permissible to writ Court to undertake judicial legislation by interpreting the relevant provisions and remove the lacunae. In fact even by extending the same principle to the petitioner’s case, his experience as School Assistant is treated as valid, but as petitioner did not have Post Graduation before 2008 the primary requirement is not fulfilled by the petitioner. 7. Therefore, the teaching experience of the petitioner prior to 2008 cannot be treated as requisite teaching experience as per the recruitment notification. 7. Therefore, the teaching experience of the petitioner prior to 2008 cannot be treated as requisite teaching experience as per the recruitment notification. I therefore, do not see any error in rejecting the candidature of petitioner for further selection process, warranting interference by this Court”. 14. Scope of judicial review in matters touching recruitment to public employment is considered by the Full Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 40157 of 2017 and batch in the judgment rendered on 18.09.2020. The opinion of Full Bench, to the extent relevant, reads as under: “61. Judicial review of administrative action is core of our constitutional scheme and rule of law. It is all pervading and encompasses all aspects of Executive actions where rights of individuals are affected. However, scope of judicial review in matters touching recruitment to public employment is in a narrow compass. Judicial review on such aspects is confined to, whether any mala fide/arbitrary decision was taken to prescribe particular qualification only to favour a particular person(s), and/or such qualifications, though not at all required to hold the concerned post, but is prescribed in order to eliminate a person(s). And if there are illegalities in the selection process vitiating the selection. As long as the eligibility criteria and procedure of selection meets the mandate of Articles 14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution of India, and no illegalities are pointed out in the selection process, the scope of judicial review on the qualifications prescribed to a post, and the procedure of selection is limited one. 62. From precedent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope of judicial review in matters of prescribing eligibility criteria, selection procedure and right of a candidate seeking public employment, the following principles can be culled out: 1. Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution of India neither exclude the laying down of selective tests, nor preclude the Government from laying down qualifications for the post in question. Such qualifications need not be only technical, but they can also be general qualifications relating to the suitability of the candidate for public service as such. [State of Mysore v. P.Narasinga Rao-paragraph 4]. 2. The Courts should not usurp the function of determining the appropriate method of selection, and the relative weight to be attached to the various tests even in cases of proven or obvious oblique motive. [State of Mysore v. P.Narasinga Rao-paragraph 4]. 2. The Courts should not usurp the function of determining the appropriate method of selection, and the relative weight to be attached to the various tests even in cases of proven or obvious oblique motive. That would be amounting to re-writing the rules; the courts should not undertake such an exercise. [LilaDhar Vs State of Rajasthan :Paragraph-9] 3. Matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, prescribing additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference, criteria of selection fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. The Court has no role either in determining the methodology of recruitment, or in laying down the criteria of selection. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements that a candidate must possess, according to the needs of the employer, and the nature of work. In the garb of judicial review, a Court cannot sit in the chair of the appointing authority, and decide what is best for the employer. Moreover, the Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer, and ordain that a particular post be filled in a particular manner. The Court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment over the same. In such matters, the power of judicial review can be exercised only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision, or is patently arbitrary, or is vitiated due to mala fide. It is also not open to the Court to make comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The Court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should structure or restructure the cadres for the purpose of improving the efficiency of administration. [Union of India v. Pushpa Rani : Paragraph-37]. [Maharashtra Public Service Commission (supra) : Paragraph-9]. 4. Since the administrative authorities have experience in administration, the Court must respect this. Thus, the Court should not interfere readily with administrative decisions. The Court should not ordinarily interfere in policy decisions, unless there is clear violation of some constitutional or statutory provision (or the statute.). [Dilip Kumar Garg v. State of U.P.,: Paragraph- 15]. There should be judicial restraint in administrative decisions. Thus, the Court should not interfere readily with administrative decisions. The Court should not ordinarily interfere in policy decisions, unless there is clear violation of some constitutional or statutory provision (or the statute.). [Dilip Kumar Garg v. State of U.P.,: Paragraph- 15]. There should be judicial restraint in administrative decisions. [Tata Cellular v. Union of India [ (1994) 6 SCC 651 ]. 5. An enabling provision postulates a discretion which may or may not be exercised. The Court cannot find fault in exercising an enabling power in a particular manner. [Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others Vs Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others: Paragraph-29] 6. Where an Executive action of the State is challenged, the Court must tread with caution, and not overstep its limits. The interference by the Court is warranted only when there are oblique motives, or there is miscarriage of justice. [Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey: Paragraph- 21] 7. The recruitment notification merely amounts to an invitation to the qualified candidates to apply for recruitment. On their selection, they do not acquire indefeasible right to the post, even if all the vacancies notified are not filled up. [Shankarsan Dash Vs Union of India: Paragraph- 7; Mohd. Rashid v. Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat and others : Paragraph-13 ]. 8. In service jurisprudence, constitutional Courts should balance the equality principle with the principle of classification, dependent on the nexus for making the classification; this aspect is best left to the wisdom of the administrative authorities [State of Uttarakhand Vs S.K.Singh: Paragraph- 27]. 9. If mode of selection is not prescribed by the rules, and there is no other impediment in law, it is permissible for the competent authority to lay down the norms for selection, such as holding tests, minimum benchmarks for written test as well as for viva voce. [Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi: Paragraph- 15]. Depending on the nature of the post, it is permissible to make selection based on performance in the interview. [Kiran Gupta v. State of U.P.,: Paragraph-26]. 10. If classification is otherwise legal, valid and reasonable, it is not prohibited by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [State of Bihar Vs. Bihar State Plus-2 Lecturer Association and others: paragraph-14]. 63. Depending on the nature of the post, it is permissible to make selection based on performance in the interview. [Kiran Gupta v. State of U.P.,: Paragraph-26]. 10. If classification is otherwise legal, valid and reasonable, it is not prohibited by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [State of Bihar Vs. Bihar State Plus-2 Lecturer Association and others: paragraph-14]. 63. From the above presidential case law on all the four aspects it is, thus, safe to conclude that: (a) & (b) xxx (c) It is for the employer to prescribe procedure of selection for direct recruitment to public employment; (d) xxx e) The scope of judicial review in matters of prescribing qualifications, procedure of selection, and method of selection is very limited. The Writ Court cannot act as Court of appeal, and cannot determine what qualifications can be prescribed to hold a post; it cannot prescribe the procedure of selection to make regular recruitment. Only when there is patent illegality in the selection procedure/process would the writ Court interfere.” 15. In paragraph-92, the Full Bench held: “92. ...... it is for the employer to prescribe the qualifications required to hold a post. It is equally for the employer to prescribe the procedure for selection and to recruit the eligible and suitable persons for a post. Depending on the job description, the employer may stipulate educational qualifications, age, and experience. Posts in the higher echelons, specialized posts, posts in special establishments may require specialized qualifications, experience and only by a particular category of persons. .............. Thus, depending on the requirements of a job, appropriate qualifications/eligibility criteria may be prescribed. It is the prerogative of the employer. Judicial review cannot be stretched to oversee what qualifications, eligibility criteria, and mode of selection should be prescribed by the employer.” (emphasis supplied) 16. In the cases on hand, petitioners do not have the eligibility criteria notified by the employer. 17. Thus, there is no patent illegality in the decision of the Public Service Commission rejecting the candidature of petitioners for recruitment as Principals in the residential societies. 18. Writ Petitions fail. They are accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.” 10. 17. Thus, there is no patent illegality in the decision of the Public Service Commission rejecting the candidature of petitioners for recruitment as Principals in the residential societies. 18. Writ Petitions fail. They are accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.” 10. As the learned Single Judge has elaborately considered the entire case laws and rightly came to a conclusion that the appellants are not entitled for any relief and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 11. With the above observations both the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in these Writ Appeals, shall stand closed.