JUDGMENT : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. Heard Mr. Y.J. Patel learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Hem Dave learned advocate for Mr. Dipak Dave learned advocate for the respondent. 2. The prayer in this petition is that a writ of mandamus be issued directing to the Corporation to consider the degree of Bachelor in Engineering as a higher qualification in the same channel and therefore treated the petitioner to be entitled for the post of Instrument Mechanic (Class-III) in the respondent Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited. 3. Facts in brief would indicate that the respondent Corporation advertised on 30.12.2020 for the post of Instrument Mechanic. The advertisement specifically stated that the qualification would be "Full Time Diploma Instrumentation". The advertisement further stipulated that B.E./B.Tech. degree holders being overqualified need not apply. The petitioner filled in his online application which had the option only to show his diploma qualification. The case of the petitioner is that he not only is a diploma holder, but also a degree holder. Therefore, possessing the higher qualification in the same line/channel, his candidature for appointment of Instrumentation Mechanic could not have been rejected. He would submit that on his application for the post, he was issued an admit card that computer based test was scheduled on 21.03.2021. Online examination was conducted. His name was figured at Sr. No. 8 on the provisional merit list. However, when various certificates were submitted, at the time of document verification, his candidature was not considered. 4. Mr. Y.J. Patel learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application for the post in question had to filled in online. There was no provision or option to show the degree qualification and therefore for the respondents to contend that the petitioner has misrepresented is misconceived. He would also rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Punit Sharma and others v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited reported in AIR 2021 SC 2221 and submit that the degree qualification being a higher qualification in the same channel could by itself not to be held as a disqualification. When by several decisions referred to therein, the Court has held that mere possession of a higher qualification would not disqualify the candidate. 5. Mr. When by several decisions referred to therein, the Court has held that mere possession of a higher qualification would not disqualify the candidate. 5. Mr. Hem Dave would draw attention of the Court to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Corporation and submit that at the relevant time, the advertisement specifically mentioned that those possessing degree in instrumentation and control need not apply. Being overqualified, the petitioner was aware of such disqualification. He participated in the process fully aware of the fact that his degree qualification would be treated as a disqualification. The case of the Corporation in the affidavit in reply is that the petitioner suppressed the fact of he possessing the higher qualification and at the time of document verification, the Corporation came to know of the petitioner possessing the degree qualification. Mr. Dave would further submit that once the advertisement was issued and the petitioner was aware of this, no challenge to the advertisement was made and thereafter once having not been selected, he would turnover to challenge his non-selection. Reliance was also placed on the decision in case of Chief Manager, Punjab National Rank v. Amit Kumar Das reported in 2020 (12) Scale 392 . 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and reading of the advertisement would indicate that unequivocally, the Corporation had made it very clear in the advertisement that an incumbent who possesses degree of B.E./B.Tech. is overqualified and need not apply. The petitioner was aware of this handicap and therefore could not have applied hinging on his higher qualifications. What needs to be noted is that the appointment was for a Class-III post of Instrumentation Mechanic and therefore stress of the recruiting authority was to see that a degree holder may not be made to compete with a diploma holder. The reliance place on the decision in the case of Punit Sharma (supra) would indicate that the argument therein that degree holders ought to be preferred as compared to diploma holders being in same channel, was in context of the rules of the advertisement herein clearly stipulating the provision where both the branches of engineering qualification of being applied. In the facts of the present case, it is not so. 7. In the facts of the present case, it is not so. 7. When the advertisement specifically barred a candidate with a higher qualification of a degree in B.E. or B.Tech from being out of competition for the post and the petitioner being fully aware of such a disqualification, applied to the post on the support of a diploma, found to have been disqualified for holding a higher degree, cannot then turn around and challenge the same when fully aware of the disqualification specifically provided for in the advertisement. If the contention of the petitioner that a degree qualification should be accepted for appointment is found to be meritorious, then it will open the doors for such higher qualified candidates to contend that they should be held eligible to apply for the post when the advertisement clearly did not stipulate such while an exigency and the candidates possessing engineering qualification in the degree branch have not applied. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit, the petition is dismissed.