ORDER : (D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J.) 1. Writ Petition No.28974 of 2021 is filed by the petitioner for the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the case of the petitioner for grant of exemption / relaxation of 3 years practice as an Advocate of High Court of A.P. vide Memo No.ENDW/142/2020/Endts.I(2), dt:14.11.2021 of the 1st respondent and communication Memo dt:22.11.2021 and also notifying the post of Assistant Commissioner, meant for ST (W) of vacancy vide Notification No.19/2021, dt:16.11.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant commissioner of Endowments as per her merit, in the selection process pursuant to Notification No.15/2018, without insisting 3 years of practice as an advocate in High Court of A.P., on par with other selected candidates, as per the Law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in WP No.23658/2019 & batch dt: 05.11.2019, which was decided based on ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & OTHERS V/S UOI report in 2002 (4) SCC 247 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. W.P.No.15507 of 2021 is filed for the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to and in connection with Section 4, Sub Section 5 (a) of the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1987 and Category 5 (i) of Class-I of Rule 3 of G.O.Ms.No.245 Revenue (Endts.I) dt: 08.05.2002 and also para-3 of the Notification No.15 of 2018 dated 21.12.2018, to the extent of prescription 3 years practice as an advocate of High Court of A.P., for Direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and quash or set aside the same, by declaring them as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments as per her merit, without insisting 3 years of practice as an advocate in High Court of .AP., from the date on which others were selected and appointed, pursuant to Recruitment Notification No.15/2018, dt:21.12.2018, as per the Law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.23658/2019 & Batch dt:05.11.2019, which was decided based on ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCAITION & OTHERS V/S UOI report in 2002 (4) SCC 247 or otherwise amend / relax the relevant Rules in favour of the petitioner, dispensing with the practice of 3 years as an advocate in High Court of A.P., and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. This Court has heard Sri Poodattu Amarender, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Endowments and also Sri N.A.Ramachandra Murthy, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent. 4. The essential grievance of the petitioner as can be analysed from the pleadings / documents and submissions is that for the post of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, a Graduation in Law along with three years practice as an Advocate in High Court is needlessly prescribed as per the service rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that this has no rational nexus to the post, for which the selection is being held or for the duties discharged by the Assistant Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that this has no rational nexus to the post, for which the selection is being held or for the duties discharged by the Assistant Commissioner. It is submitted that for the post of Assistant Commissioner a person can be promoted from the category of the Superintendent or special category Stenographer in Endowments Department, and a Degree in Law is not prescribed for the promotion. Therefore, he submits that this rule prescribing three years practice as an advocate is contrary to law. The petitioner submitted an application and at the time of verification of the records it was realised that the petitioner did not have three years practice as an Advocate. As she was prevented from attending the interview she filed W.P.No.17744 of 2019, which was allowed by the learned single Judge directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation. The petitioner made a representation to relax the condition of three years practice as an Advocate. Ultimately, the impugned order came to be passed without any decision being taken. The petitioner also sought the relaxation of Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act”) which prescribes three years practice as an advocate, relying upon the case reported in All India Judges Association & Others v Union of India, [ (2002) 4 SCC 247 ], wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held three years of practice as an Advocate is not necessary for recruitment as a Junior Civil Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents acted contrary to law and that the Government also has the power to relax the Rules under Rule 31 of A.P. Subordinate Rules and Section 134 of the Act. Therefore, in conclusion by relying upon the case law and provisions of law mentioned above, learned counsel prayed for an order in his favour. 5. In reply to this, on behalf of the 1st respondent, learned Government Pleader for Services Sri Y.N. Vivekananda appeared for respondents. It is his contention that the employer has the prerogative to fix the conditions of employment. It is also submitted that on 14.11.2021 the petitioner’s request for relaxation of the Rules i.e., three years practice as an Advocate, was rejected. It is his contention that the employer has the prerogative to fix the conditions of employment. It is also submitted that on 14.11.2021 the petitioner’s request for relaxation of the Rules i.e., three years practice as an Advocate, was rejected. It is submitted that the petitioner, who has applied for the post, pursuant to the notification and participated in the selection process cannot question the terms of the notification. All India Judges Association case (1 supra) is also distinguished by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that it is issued in the special circumstances of the cases relating to Junior Civil Judges. It is also pointed out that the petitioner, who is working in the Endowments Department itself, is fully aware of the rules and regulations and by suppressing the said fact that she had no experience of three years, the application was made. Learned counsel also relies upon the judgment in C.A.No.3602 of 2020 reported in Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank & Anr., v Anit Kumar Das, [MANU/SC/0823/2020=2021 (2) SLR 354 (sc)] wherein the case law on the subject has been reviewed and it is clearly held/reiterated that it is for the employer to determine the relevancy and suitability of qualification for the post and it is not for the Courts to consider or to assess the same. It is pointed out that unless the same is arbitrary etc., the Court should not interfere. It is also submitted that in Dheeraj Mor v Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, [ (2020) 7 SCC 401 = Civil Appeal No.1698 of 2020] the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India upheld the fixation of seven years of practice being needed for the direct recruitment as District Judges. 6. On behalf of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, learned standing counsel Sri N.A. Ramachandra Murthy argued that the petitioner, who participated in the examination conducted pursuant to the Notification No.15/2018, dated 21.12.2018 cannot question the terms and conditions of the said Notification. It is his contention that the Notification clearly specified that one should have practice for three years as an advocate. It is also argued that by the time the Writ Petition is filed viz., April, 2021, the final recruitment was totally completed and three unfilled vacancies were also carried forward to the next notification. 7. It is his contention that the Notification clearly specified that one should have practice for three years as an advocate. It is also argued that by the time the Writ Petition is filed viz., April, 2021, the final recruitment was totally completed and three unfilled vacancies were also carried forward to the next notification. 7. This Court after hearing the submission of all the learned counsel notices that the petitioner is working in the Endowments Department itself as an Executive Officer, Grade-II. This is visible from a reading of the cause title and paragraph-1 of the affidavit itself. She was recruited through APPSC in April, 2012 (para-2 of the affidavit) for this post. From 2012 she has been working in the Endowments Department. Therefore, she is a person who cannot deny the knowledge of provisions of the Act 30 of 1987 (Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987). Section 4 of the Act clearly specifies that a person to be appointed by direct recruitment as an Assistant Commissioner shall be one who has at least 3 years of practice as an Advocate in the High Court. Similarly, rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Service Rules-2002, clearly talks of the need of three years of practice as an Advocate for appointment by direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out that this Rule is arbitrary. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel is that the Endowments Tribunal has been established and that, therefore, no judicial functions are entrusted to the Assistant Commissioners and hence the need for law practice is not needed. This Court is unable to agree that only on this ground the Notification can be set aside. It is a known fact that Endowments Department has a large amount of litigation and it is time and again protecting / defending its vast properties and institutions. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner being a responsible official in the hierarchy may also need experience of practice as a lawyer. Apart from that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent in the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank case (2 supra) has summarised the entire law on the subject. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner being a responsible official in the hierarchy may also need experience of practice as a lawyer. Apart from that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent in the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank case (2 supra) has summarised the entire law on the subject. It is very clearly held in that case that the petitioner was in fact over qualified and although he was a graduate he applied for the post, for which requires 12th class pass. The petitioner filed a case against his disqualification and matter went upto the Supreme Court. The Court reiterated the case law that it is not for this Court to determine the relevancy and suitability of qualification for any post. It is also reiterated that any recruitment to Public Services should be held strictly in accordance with the rules. Apart from that, this Court also has to agree with the submissions made in Dheeraj Mor case (3 supra) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as follows: “47 (iv): For the purpose of Article 233(2), an Advocate has to be continuing in practice for not less than 7 years as on the cut-off date and at the time of appointment as District Judge. Members of judicial service having 7 years experience of practice before they have joined the service or having combined experience of 7 years as lawyer and member of judiciary, are not eligible to apply for direct recruitment as a District Judge.” 8. Lastly, this Court also notices that the petitioner, who has participated in the selection process by submitting an application, taking entrance examination, qualifying the same, cannot question the terms of the Notification. The law on the subject is sufficiently well settled. For the sake of good order the following judgment alone is cited – Union of India v S. Vinodh Kumar, [ (2007) 8 SCC 100 ]. Therefore, the petitioner conduct estops her from challenging the terms of the notification. 9. For all the above mentioned reasons, this Court holds that the petitioner has not made out a case for interference. Both by virtue of law on the subject and by her personal conduct, she is not entitled to any relief. 10. The Writ Petitions are, therefore, dismissed. No costs. 11. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.