JUDGMENT : 1. The respondent No.1 issued an advertisement, thereby inviting applications for recruitment of officers of Scale-I, II and III and Office Assistant (Multipurpose) in Regional Rural Banks including J&K Grameen Bank as well i.e. the respondent No. 2. The posts advertised by the respondent No. 1 included the post of Officer Scale-II (Treasury Manager). The qualification prescribed for the above-mentioned post was Chartered Accountant or MBA in Finance from recognized University/Institute with one year experience in the relevant field. As per the notification, the candidates applying for Scale-II (Generalist and Specialists) and Scale-III posts, were required to appear for a single online examination and shortlisted candidates in the single examination were subsequently to be called for a common interview to be co-ordinated by the Nodal Regional Rural Banks with the help of NABARD and IBPs in consultation with the appropriate authority. 2. It was also provided in the notification that the candidates must necessarily produce the documents in original along with photocopies in support of their identity and eligibility pertaining to the category, nationality, age, educational qualification etc. as indicated in the online application form at the time of interview/document verification, as the case may be. Simultaneously, it was also provided that merely applying for Common Recruitment Process (CRP)/appearing for and being shortlisted in the online examination (preliminary and main) and/or in the subsequent interview and/or provisionally allotted and/or subsequent process would not imply that a candidate would necessarily be offered an employment in any of the Regional Rural Banks. It was further provided in the notification that while appearing for the interview, the candidate should produce valid prescribed documents as mentioned in the notification. In the absence of documents, the candidature of the candidates was to be cancelled. The documents which were required to be produced in support of candidate’s eligibility and identity included the experience certificate as on 14.08.2017, if applicable. 3. The petitioner, who claimed to possess degree of MBA in Finance and experience of more than one year in the relevant field, as he was working as Office Assistant/Cashier-cum-Clerk in J&K Grameen Bank with effect from 24.03.2014 and further having an experience of working as Account Assistant with M/s Singh Construction Company with effect from 05.09.2011 to 27.12.2013, applied for the post of Officer Scale-II (Treasury Manager). He qualified the examination and came to be selected as Officer Scale-II (Treasury Manager) and was allotted the J&K Grameen Bank. 4. Vide order dated 15.03.2018, the petitioner was asked by the respondent No. 3 to submit documents for verification, which were submitted by the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 addressed a communication dated 01.05.2018 to the petitioner directing him to submit the balance sheets for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 of M/s Singh Construction Company within fifteen days failing which, the candidature of the petitioner was liable to be cancelled. Pursuant to the said communication, the petitioner through email dated 05.05.2018 requested M/s Singh Construction Company for providing the balance sheets for the year, 2011, 2012, and 2013 but M/s Singh Construction Company refused to provide the balance sheets on the ground that the same was personal information and could not be shared. The petitioner on 10.05.2018 informed the respondent No. 3 in respect of the response from M/s Singh Construction Company and requested the respondent No.3 to take up the matter with regard to balance sheets directly with M/s Singh Construction Company. As the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not issue formal order of appointment, therefore, being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner assailed the communication dated 01.05.2018 through the medium of SWP bearing No. 1050/2018. Vide interim order dated 29.05.2018, the impugned communication dated 01.05.2018 was put in abeyance and a direction was issued to the respondent No. 3 to reconsider and provide the information as sought by the petitioner, in terms of order dated 05.05.2018. The respondents filed the response in the aforesaid writ petition, stating therein that the petitioner did not possess the experience in the relevant field and more so, he was not able to submit the balance sheets of the firm, namely, M/s Singh Construction Company. It was also stated that the balance sheets of the firm were sought only to ascertain as to whether the firm was engaged in treasury operations or not. A further stand was also taken by the respondents in their response that the experience earned by the petitioner, while working as Office Assistant/Cashier-cum-Clerk in the J&K Grameen Bank was not relevant as the experience in Treasury Management was required for the post in question. 5. A further stand was also taken by the respondents in their response that the experience earned by the petitioner, while working as Office Assistant/Cashier-cum-Clerk in the J&K Grameen Bank was not relevant as the experience in Treasury Management was required for the post in question. 5. The writ petition bearing SWP No. 1050/2018 was disposed of by the Court vide order dated 01.12.2018 thereby permitting the petitioner to produce either the balance sheets as required by the respondents or produce such other documents, which would suggest that the petitioner had the requisite experience in handling Treasury Operations during the course of his employment. 6. The petitioner pursuant to the judgment dated 01.12.2018 claims to have submitted the experience certificate once again i.e. certificate issued by M/s Singh Construction Company and communication dated 20.07.2018 addressed by the Public Information Officer in the office of Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries, Finance Department, Jammu providing an information to the petitioner under J&K RTI Act, 2009 to the effect that the State Treasuries do not make any investments and cash management & management of accounts are the part of Treasury. 7. The petitioner, subsequently, filed the contempt petition bearing COA(SW) No. 32/2019 as the respondents did not appoint the petitioner even after the submission of the documents as mentioned above by the petitioner. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the respondent No. 3 issued order/communication dated 04.02.2019, whereby the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. 8. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the communication dated 04.02.2019 inter alia on the grounds: (a) That once the petitioner possesses qualification i.e. MBA Finance and more than three years experience in the related filed i.e. Accounts Assistant/Cashier-cum-Clerk in the Grameen Bank and two years working experience as Accounts Assistant with M/s Singh Construction Company, there is no justification available with the respondents to address the impugned communication thereby denying the appointment to the petitioner. Once the petitioner was found eligible at earlier stages, the candidature of the petitioner could not have been rejected subsequently. Once the petitioner was found eligible at earlier stages, the candidature of the petitioner could not have been rejected subsequently. (b) That by way of communication dated 01.05.2018, the appointment was denied to the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner was not able to provide the balance sheets for the year 2011, 2012 and 2013 of M/s Singh Construction Company, whereas by way of impugned communication dated 04.02.2019 the respondents have altogether taken a different stand and assigned different reasoning that the experience required was of assets liability management, capital and reserve requirement, liaisoning with regulatory bodies, liquid investment in Government Securities and disaster management. (c) That the cash management & management of accounts are part of treasury operation itself. Neither the State Treasury nor the Grameen Bank, makes any investment directly or for that matter liquid investment in Government Securities, which fact is evident from the reply received by the petitioner from the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries, Finance Department, J&K Jammu. M/s Singh Construction Company has certified that the petitioner was dealing with Treasury Operations i.e. Management of accounts, sale and purchase of market securities, shares and other related work. It is further stated that the information received by the petitioner from the office Accountant General establishes that the cash management and management of accounts are part of treasury operations. (d) That the respondents in the case of one Sanchit Gupta relied upon a simple certificate from SIT Institute that he had worked as Network Administrator only and no separate experience in different fields of information technology was sought from the aforesaid candidate despite the fact that for the post of Officer Scale-II (Information Technology Officer), the desirable qualification was certificate in ASP, PHP, C++, Java, VB, BC, OCP etc with one year experience in the relevant field. (e) That the communication dated 11.04.2018 addressed by the Senior Manager Investment, J&K Grameen Bank to the vice President J&K Bank Ltd requesting J&K Bank Ltd to purchase on behalf of J&K Grameen Bank Treasury Bill of residual maturity period of around 4-5 months to the extent of Rs. 15 crores face value on the market related rate demonstrates that the J&K Grameen Bank does not deal with Government Securities and liquid investment directly. 9. The respondent Nos. 15 crores face value on the market related rate demonstrates that the J&K Grameen Bank does not deal with Government Securities and liquid investment directly. 9. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed the response stating therein that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and he has now placed on record the balance sheets of M/s Singh Construction Company but the balance sheets were never produced before the respondents and a perusal of the balance sheets placed on record by the petitioner clearly shows that he has no experience whatsoever of the treasury operations and as such, he is not eligible for appointment against the post of Officer Scale-II (Treasury Manager). It is further stated that even the qualification of MBA acquired by the petitioner is not valid, in as much as, the petitioner claims to have done his Master’s in Business Administration from Punjab Technical University in September, 2010 and during the same period, it has been found that the petitioner was undergoing MCA in University of Jammu as a regular student. The qualification of MBA acquired by the petitioner during the same period from Study Centre, as such, is not valid. It is further stated that the Officer Scale-II(Treasury Manager) is a post which carries with it the specialist kind of duties. The Treasury Manager has to ensure strict compliance with the statutory reserves like Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR) and Statutory Liquidity Ratio (SLR). The Treasury Manager has to ensure the compliance of Reserve Bank of India statutory guidelines and earn optimum profit with calculated risk in financial markets. The J&K Grameen Bank has opened Constituent Subsidiary General Ledger Account (CSGL) i.e. Gilt account with J&K Bank, which is eligible to open a CSGL account with the Reserve Bank of India. So far as SGL account is concerned, it is stated that the Reserve Bank of India offers SGL account facility to select entities, which can hold their securities in SGL accounts maintained with the Public Debt Offices of the Reserve Bank of India. Only financially strong entities viz. Banks, PDs, select UCBs and NBFCs which meet Reserve Bank of India guidelines are allowed to maintain SGL with the Reserve Bank of India. Only financially strong entities viz. Banks, PDs, select UCBs and NBFCs which meet Reserve Bank of India guidelines are allowed to maintain SGL with the Reserve Bank of India. It is further stated that the Treasury Manager of the Bank makes purchase and sale of securities and decides which security is required, kind of return pricing, tenure of securities etc. before purchase and thereafter he communicates to the bank for the purchase of the securities as decided by the Treasury Manager and with the approval of the management, the purchases are made. It is the responsibility of the Treasury Manager to ensure liquidity management i.e. optimum utilization of the residual resources through investment in financial market like Central Government Securities, State Development Loans (SDL), Treasury Bills and certificate of deposits i.e. directly through non-competitive bids from primary market or from the secondary market. The respondents have mentioned in detail the responsibilities of the Treasury Manager to demonstrate that the job or work profile of the Treasury Manager is not that of ordinary Manager/Clerk of the bank, who conducts routine banking operations. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are candid in their reply that the experience as Office Assistant/Cashier-cum-Clerk will not suffice the requirements/qualification for the post of Treasury Manager. The experience of the petitioner as Accounts Assistant with M/s Singh Construction Company is also not relevant for the present post as the petitioner does not have any experience of treasury management. The petitioner as such, is not eligible for the post. The petitioner was asked to produce the relevant experience certificate but he failed to do so. The job of Officer Scale-II (Treasury Manager) is highly technical in nature, as such, properly qualified and experienced person is required to man the said post. It is further averred that the balance sheets for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 of M/s Singh Construction Company were requisitioned from the petitioner to find out as to whether the said company was engaged in treasury operations or not but the petitioner failed to produce the same. It is further stated that the petitioner deliberately did not produce the balance sheets of M/s Singh Construction Company, as the petitioner knew that he did not have the relevant experience as the said company was not involved in treasury operations at all. It is further stated that the petitioner deliberately did not produce the balance sheets of M/s Singh Construction Company, as the petitioner knew that he did not have the relevant experience as the said company was not involved in treasury operations at all. So far as placing reliance upon the information received from the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries is concerned, the same is totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with the job profile of the post of Officer Scale-II (Treasury Manager). It is further averred that the management of accounts and cash in State Government is altogether a different function as compared to the job of a Treasury Manager in the banking sector. The petitioner from day one knew the kind of experience required for the post of Treasury Manager and that is why he had managed the certificate from M/S Singh Construction Co. that the petitioner had the experience of sale and purchase of market securities, shares (treasury operations) and all other related work. The balance sheets placed on record by the petitioner clearly establish that the petitioner has no experience whatsoever of treasury operations. Precisely, the stand of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is that that the petitioner never had the requisite experience, as such, his candidature was cancelled. 10. Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was having the requisite experience of one year which is duly substantiated by the balance sheets and the certificate issued by M/s Singh Construction Company and further that the petitioner also had the experience of working as an Account Assistant/Cashier-cum-Clerk. The experience earned by the petitioner as Office Assistant/Cashier-cum-Clerk was sufficient enough for his appointment against the post of Officer Scale-II (Treasury Manager). He further argued that the J&K Grameen Bank does not deal with the Government securities or make liquid investments and as such, the reliance being placed by the respondent No. 2 upon the work profile for the post of Officer Scale-II (Treasury Manager) is misconceived. He further argued that the J&K Grameen Bank does not deal with the Government securities or make liquid investments and as such, the reliance being placed by the respondent No. 2 upon the work profile for the post of Officer Scale-II (Treasury Manager) is misconceived. He relied heavily upon the replies received from the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries, Finance Department and from the office of Accountant General, J&K Jammu to demonstrate that the cash management and management of accounts are part of treasury operations which pertain to functions of treasury and neither State Treasury nor the J&K Grameen Bank makes any investment directly in the Government securities. 11. Per contra, Mr. Rahul Pant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has vehemently argued that right from the beginning the petitioner knew that he was not possessing the experience in the relevant field and after the directions were issued by this Court while disposing of earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner never submitted the balance sheets. He further submitted that the experience gained by the petitioner while working as Office Assistant/Cashier-cum-Clerk by the petitioner, cannot be considered as experience equivalent to the experience required for the post in question as the post requires specialised experience. He further vehemently argued that the information obtained by the petitioner from the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries, Finance Department and the office of the Accountant General also cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner as the management of cash and accounts in the State Government is altogether different function as compared to the banking sector. 12. Heard and perused the record. 13. The first contention raised by the petitioner is that once the petitioner was found eligible on the basis of the work experience earned by the petitioner as Accounts Assistant/Cashier-cum-Clerk in the J&K Grameen Bank as well as Accounts Assistant with the M/s Singh Construction Company, at the different stages and even at the time of interview, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 could not have rejected the candidature of the petitioner subsequently. The contention raised by the petitioner deserves to be rejected solely on the ground that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court and this Court vide order dated 01.12.2018 while disposing of the writ petition observed as under: “7. 2 and 3 could not have rejected the candidature of the petitioner subsequently. The contention raised by the petitioner deserves to be rejected solely on the ground that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court and this Court vide order dated 01.12.2018 while disposing of the writ petition observed as under: “7. Apparently, there is nothing wrong with the communication 01.05.2018 impugned in the present writ petition. The petitioner would be under an obligation to produce either the balance-sheet as required by the respondents or produce such other documents, which would suggest that the petitioner had the requisite experience in handling Treasury Operations during his course of employment. The onus is strictly on the petitioner. In case, he fails to produce the same, it would not prevent the respondents from taking a decision, which would be in the best interest of their organization. 8. Be that as it may, the petitioner is given one week’s opportunity to produce the requisite proof/material in support of the certificates furnished by him. In case, the same is not done it shall be open to the respondents to take an appropriate decision in this required.” 14. More so, the stipulations contained in the notification make it abundantly clear that mere participation in the CRP/appearing and shortlisted in the online examination and/or in the subsequent interview and/or provisional selection and/or subsequent process would not mean that the candidate necessarily be offered employment in any of the regional rural banks. The advertisement further provided that the non-production of the documents in respect of eligibility of the candidate at the time of interview/document verification shall make the candidate ineligible. In view of the above, this Court does not find any force in the contention, as such, the same is rejected. 15. The second contention raised by the petitioner is that after the order dated 01.12.2018 was passed the petitioner submitted the certificate issued by M/s Singh Construction Company and also the balance sheets for the year, 2011, 2012 and 2013. The respondents have categorically denied to have received the balance sheets for the year, 2011, 2012 and 2013 but at the same time, they have stated that after perusing the balance sheets annexed with the writ petition, it is found that the petitioner is not eligible. This Court finds substance in the submissions made by the respondent Nos. The respondents have categorically denied to have received the balance sheets for the year, 2011, 2012 and 2013 but at the same time, they have stated that after perusing the balance sheets annexed with the writ petition, it is found that the petitioner is not eligible. This Court finds substance in the submissions made by the respondent Nos. 2&3 that the balance sheets were not provided by the petitioner after order dated 01.12.2018 was passed. This Court says so after examining the record submitted by the respondents 2 and 3 for the perusal of the Court. Be that as it may, the respondents in their response have categorically stated that the petitioner has no experience whatsoever of the treasury operations as required by the respondent-Bank. The petitioner was directed to produce the balance sheets so as to find out as to whether the concern with which the petitioner was working, was involved in treasury operations or not. The averments made in the certificate could not be substantiated by the balance sheets provided by the petitioner. The respondents are right in stating that the experience earned by the petitioner with M/s Singh Construction Company would not qualify him for appointment as Officer Scale-II (Treasury Manager), as such, there is no force in this contention as well and accordingly, the same is rejected. 16. The third contention raised by the petitioner is that while working as Office Assistant/Cashier-cum-Clerk, the petitioner has earned experience and experience earned by the petitioner forms part of the treasury operations which is duly substantiated by the information provided by the Office of Accountant General, J&K that the cash management or management of accounts is the part of treasury operations. It is settled law that it is for the employer to prescribe the qualification required for a particular post and also it is for the employer only to examine as to whether the candidate is possessing the said qualification or not because the qualification is prescribed by the employer depending upon the nature of duties and responsibilities attached with a particular post. There may be a particular post in different organizations but their work profiles may be different. It would be appropriate to take note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404 , wherein it has been held as under: 27. There may be a particular post in different organizations but their work profiles may be different. It would be appropriate to take note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404 , wherein it has been held as under: 27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The State is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision-making. The State as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596] must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti K.K. turned. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Unnikrishnan C V vs. Union of India”, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 343 has held that “Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine”. 18. In both these judgments it has been held that the equivalence of the qualification cannot be determined by the courts and the said exercise should be left with the employer. In view of the above, this Court cannot determine as to whether the experience earned by the petitioner, while working as Accounts Assistant/Cashier-cum-Clerk can be considered as relevant for the purpose of the post for which the petitioner had applied, particularly when the respondent Nos. 2&3 have mentioned in detail the work profile of Officer Scale-II (Treasury Manager). In view of the above, this Court cannot determine as to whether the experience earned by the petitioner, while working as Accounts Assistant/Cashier-cum-Clerk can be considered as relevant for the purpose of the post for which the petitioner had applied, particularly when the respondent Nos. 2&3 have mentioned in detail the work profile of Officer Scale-II (Treasury Manager). Even if, assuming for the sake of arguments that the cash and management of the accounts are part of treasury operations, still there could be other duties/responsibilities in addition to cash management and management of accounts and the employer is the best person to judge the suitability of the candidate for a particular post depending upon the requirements of a specialized qualification for the said post, as such, there is no force in this contention as well, therefore, the same is rejected. 19. The fourth contention raised by the petitioner is that the J&K Grameen Bank does not make any investment directly that too in the Government Securities. The petitioner in fact, is raising dispute with regard to the work profile of Office Scale-II for which he has applied. The respondents are right in submitting that the post of Officer Scale-II (Treasury Officer) requires specialized experience in view of the nature of the various responsibilities to be performed by the person manning the said post. As already noted above, it is the employer who has to determine the suitability of the candidate depending upon the requirements for the particular post and the candidate cannot dictate terms to the employer to interpret the requisite qualification in a particular manner, when the reasoning assigned by the employer while rejecting the candidature is neither arbitrary nor perverse. As such, this contention too is rejected. 20. The last contention raised by the petitioner, though not pressed during the course of arguments, is that in the case of Sanchit Gupta, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 while appointing him have relied upon the certificate issued by the SIT Institute, whereas the post required specialized qualifications. It is reiterated that it is the prerogative of the employer to determine the eligibility of the candidate depending upon the qualifications prescribed for the said post and the petitioner cannot derive any benefit out of the selection of Sanchit Gupta. 21. It is reiterated that it is the prerogative of the employer to determine the eligibility of the candidate depending upon the qualifications prescribed for the said post and the petitioner cannot derive any benefit out of the selection of Sanchit Gupta. 21. For all what has been said and discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is misconceived and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 22. The record of the respondent-Bank be returned to the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank.