ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the constitutional validity of Schedule-III enacted under Rule 8 of the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2019’), whereby qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science/Laboratory) has been prescribed as Higher Secondary with Biology/Mathematics Subject, however, Diploma Holders have been left out to be qualified for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science/Laboratory). 2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that earlier, as per the Chhattisgarh Teacher (Panchayat) Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2012’) (Annexure P-3), the candidates having equivalent qualification of diploma are entitled for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science/Laboratory) and while enacting the Rules of 2019, in place of the Rules of 2012, which came into force with effect from 5-3-2019, such qualification has been omitted which violates Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore the petitioner is deprived of opportunity to appear in the examination of Assistant Teacher (Science/Laboratory), as such, it is unconstitutional and invalid and it be declared ultra vires to Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. 3. Return has been filed on behalf of the State stating inter alia that fixing or determining the eligibility criteria for selection like subject, minimum qualification and percentage of marks and omission of post are always the prerogative of the employer and merely because any criteria does not suit any candidate, the same cannot be held to be ultra vires for the reason that it exclude some of the candidates, as such the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and also for the reason that the petitioner having participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement issued and his candidature having been declared rejected has later-on taking a calculative chance, chosen to challenge the constitutional validity of the rule. As such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Mr. As such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that omission in the present rule in Schedule-III, S.No.2 that diploma holders have been excluded from participating in the recruitment for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science/Laboratory) is per se violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and contrary to law, and totally unconstitutional and thus, deserves to be declared ultra vires. 5. Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/respondents No.1 & 2, would support the impugned rule and submit that prescription of qualification is the prerogative of the State Government or the employer, the petitioner has no say in that and the Rule under challenge is in accordance with law, it is neither said to be violative of the constitutional provisions nor it is contrary to law and therefore it is being not convenient to the petitioner and he could not appear in the examination, the Rule is not liable to be declared ultra vires. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. It is apparent from record that prior to coming into force of the Rules of 2019, the Rules of 2012 relating to appointment of Teacher (Panchayat) were in force. Similarly, for municipalities and Municipal Corporations, the Chhattisgarh Shikshak (Nagariya Nikay) Samvarg (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 were in force. The competent authority in its wisdom decided to repeal both the Rules and thus, framed and enacted the Rules of 2019 in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India with effect from 5-3-2019 in which under Schedule-III enacted under Rule 8, following educational qualification has been prescribed for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science/Laboratory): - SCHEDULE-III (See rule 8) S.No. Name of Service/Post Minimu m Age Limit Maximum Age Limit Minimum Educational/Technical Qualifications Name of the Members of Selection Committee Remarks (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 2. Assistant Teacher (Science/Laboratory) 21 years 35 years Passed Higher Secondary Examination with Biology/Mathematics Subject (1) District Education Officer – Chairman (2) Principal, DIET – Member (3) Block Education Officer – Member (4) Assistant Director/Equivalent – Member-Secretary (5) Principal, Government Higher Secondary School – Member - 8. Assistant Teacher (Science/Laboratory) 21 years 35 years Passed Higher Secondary Examination with Biology/Mathematics Subject (1) District Education Officer – Chairman (2) Principal, DIET – Member (3) Block Education Officer – Member (4) Assistant Director/Equivalent – Member-Secretary (5) Principal, Government Higher Secondary School – Member - 8. A careful perusal of the aforesaid Rule would show that the competent authority in its wisdom has prescribed educational qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science/Laboratory) that the candidate must have passed Higher Secondary Examination with Biology/Mathematics Subject and no other person held eligible for consideration on the post of Assistant Teacher (Science/Laboratory). 9. It is well settled law that inclusion/exclusion of a particular subject for consideration for appointment to a particular post (specifically for the job of teaching) is the prerogative of the State Government or the employer and the employer has all the right to choose, in its own wisdom and to permit the candidate qualified in particular subjects or group of subjects to participate or be eligible for recruitment in a particular post. 10. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Maharashtra Public Service Commission Through its Secretary v. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others, (2019) 6 SCC 362 in which it has been held that essential qualifications for appointment to post, it is for employer to decide according to needs and nature of work. It has been observed in paragraph 9 of the report as under: “9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive rewriting of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.” 11. In the matter of Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and another v. Anit Kumar Das, (2021) 12 SCC 80 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the courts to consider and assess. 12. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the principles of law laid down in the above stated judgments, it is quite vivid that prescription of educational qualification for a post is the sole prerogative of the employer and merely because a candidate is not having that qualification for the said post and he/she is finding difficult to appear in the selection process for the particular post for want of desired educational qualification, the educational qualification so prescribed in the relevant rules cannot be struck down unless it is manifestly arbitrary or discriminatory or violative to the provisions of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, merely because, the rule in question excludes the diploma holders to be considered for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science/Laboratory), the rule itself cannot be declared ultra vires or it cannot be held to be violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. The competent authority in its wisdom considering the nature of job to be performed by the Assistant Teacher (Science/Laboratory) has prescribed the educational qualification. The competent authority in its wisdom considering the nature of job to be performed by the Assistant Teacher (Science/Laboratory) has prescribed the educational qualification. In view of the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the omission to include the Diploma Holders in the said Rule/Schedule for the post of Assistant Teacher (Science/Laboratory) is neither unconstitutional nor violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).