JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Chamuah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. T. R. Gogoi, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1. Heard also Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the advertisement dated 19.09.2023 and further seeking a direction upon the respondent No.4 to re-advertise the post with modified conditions by removing the upper limit of educational qualification for the post of peon in the establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon, Assam. 3. From a perusal of the materials on record, it would show that on 19.09.2023, the District and Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon i.e. the respondent no.4 herein had issued an advertisement for filling up of 2 (two) vacant posts of Office Peon in the Establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon. The requisite qualifications stipulated in the said advertisement was “Class VIII passed. (HSSLC passed or above shall be ineligible.)” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that limiting of the qualification vide the impugned advertisement dated 19.09.2023 is in violation to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and in that regard, has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and Others Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 606 . He submitted that limiting of the said qualification to those candidates who have not passed HSSLC is required to be interfered with. The learned counsel further submitted that the District Judges’ Establishment in various Districts under the Gauhati High Court have been issuing advertisements containing different qualifications and as such, the said impugned advertisement dated 19.09.2023 is required to be interfered with. 5. Per contra, Mr. H.K. Das, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 submitted that in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and Another Vs. Anit Kumar Das, (2021) 12 SCC 80 a three Judges’ Bench of the Supreme Court after taking into consideration the judgment in the case of Mohd. 2, 3 and 4 submitted that in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and Another Vs. Anit Kumar Das, (2021) 12 SCC 80 a three Judges’ Bench of the Supreme Court after taking into consideration the judgment in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani (supra) had observed 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. He further submitted that the impugned advertisement so issued is in consonance with the notification dated 04.01.2021 issued by the Registrar (Vigilance) of the Gauhati High Court whereby the Rule 6(d) of the Gauhati High Court Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967 was incorporated and applied for stipulating the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Grade-IV in the District Judiciary within the State of Assam. 6. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and given its anxious consideration. 7. From a perusal of the advertisement dated 19.09.2023, impugned in the instant proceedings, it is seen that the requisite qualification set out therein for the candidates to apply for the two posts of Office Peon is Class VIII passed and the candidates who had passed HSSLC or above shall be ineligible. This Court finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani (supra) wherein a two Judges’ Bench of the Supreme Court at paragraph No.21 had observed that the criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he is having higher qualification than prescribed cannot be rational. It is however relevant to take note of that in the same paragraph No.21, the Supreme Court also observed that the said observations was made on the facts of that case and should not be understood and laying down the rule of universal application. 8. It is however relevant to take note of that in the same paragraph No.21, the Supreme Court also observed that the said observations was made on the facts of that case and should not be understood and laying down the rule of universal application. 8. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of the judgment in the case of Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank (supra) wherein a three Judges’ Bench of the Supreme Court after taking into consideration the various judgments of the Supreme Court on the question of limiting the educational qualifications to a particular post observed at paragraph No.17.3 which is reproduced herein under: “ 17.3. Thus, as held by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, 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. A greater latitude is permitted by the courts for the employer to prescribe qualifications for any post. There is a rationale behind it. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the need and interest of an institution or an industry or an establishment as the case may be. The courts are not fit instruments to assess expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications. However, at the same time, the employer cannot act arbitrarily or fancifully in prescribing qualifications for posts. In the present case, prescribing the eligibility criteria/educational qualification that a graduate candidate shall not be eligible and the candidate must have passed 12th standard is justified and as observed hereinabove, it is a conscious decision taken by the Bank which is in force since 2008. Therefore, the High Court has clearly erred in directing the appellant Bank to allow the respondent-original writ petitioner to discharge his duties as a Peon, though he as such was not eligible as per the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement.” 9. A perusal of the above paragraph categorically shows that it is the employer who has the right to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualification for any post and it is not for the Courts to consider and assess. It was further observed that a greater latitude is required to be permitted by the Courts for the employer to prescribe the qualifications for any post. It was further observed that a greater latitude is required to be permitted by the Courts for the employer to prescribe the qualifications for any post. The Supreme Court categorically observed that qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the need and the interest of an institution or an industry or an establishment as the case may be and it is not the role or function of judicial review to expand the ambit of prescribed qualifications. 10. It is relevant to take note of that in the said case i.e. Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with the aspect of prescribing the eligibility criteria/educational qualification that a graduate candidate shall not be eligible and a candidate must have passed 12th standard. The Supreme Court observed that the said prescription of the eligibility criteria/educational qualification could not have been interfered with by the High Court and permit the appellant Bank therein to allow the respondent i.e. the writ petitioner therein to discharge his duties as peon. 11. Taking into consideration the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank (supra) , it therefore the opinion of this Court that the decision so taken to prescribe the educational qualification of Class VIII passed and those who have passed HSSLC or above shall not be eligible cannot be interfered with in exercise of powers of judicial review. 12. Now, let this Court take note of the next submission so made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no uniformity in prescribing the requisite qualification by the District Judiciary under the Gauhati High Court. This Court finds it relevant to take note of that vide a notification dated 28.01.2016, the Chief Justice in exercise of its powers under Article 229 of the Constitution had prescribed the eligibility criteria/educational qualifications for appointment of persons in Grade-IV (Group-D) posts in the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court and its Outlying Benches. This Court finds it relevant to take note of that vide a notification dated 28.01.2016, the Chief Justice in exercise of its powers under Article 229 of the Constitution had prescribed the eligibility criteria/educational qualifications for appointment of persons in Grade-IV (Group-D) posts in the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court and its Outlying Benches. The said notification being relevant is reproduced herein under: “ NOTIFICATION Dated Guwahati, the 28 th January, 2016 No. HC.XI-06/2015/67/RC: In exercise of the powers conferred under Article 229 of the Constitution of India and in supersession of all Rules/orders, Hon’ble the Chief Justice (Acting) of the Gauhati High Court has been pleased to amend/modify the qualification for appointment of persons in Class IV (Group-D) posts in the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court and its Outlying Benches, in the following manner: “ A candidate for appointment to the post of Class-IV (Group-D) in the Service of Gauhati High Court and its Outlying Benches must possess the minimum educational qualification of Class-VIII standard; and those who have passed HSSLC or above shall be ineligible to apply for the said posts. Candidates possessing special skills may be given preference on need basis.” This shall be inserted as Rule 6(d) in the Gauhati High Court Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967.” By order Sd/- H.K. Sarma REGISTRAR GENERAL” 13. It is further seen that vide another Notification No.1 dated 04.01.2021, the provisions of Rule 6(d) of the Gauhati High Court Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967 was made applicable as eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Grade-IV in its District Judiciary within the State of Assam. The contents of the Notification No.1 dated 04.01.2021 being relevant is reproduced herein under: “ NOTIFICATION NO. The contents of the Notification No.1 dated 04.01.2021 being relevant is reproduced herein under: “ NOTIFICATION NO. 1 Dated Guwahati, the 4 th January, 2021 No. HC.XV.10/2018/01/RV: Pending framing and/or approval of Rules governing the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Grade-IV in the Subordinate Courts within the state of Assam, selection process for appointment to those posts in the Subordinate Courts of Assam shall be governed by the Rules framed and applicable in the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court and its outlying Benches notified vide Notification No.HC.XI.06/2015/67/RC., dated 28.01.2016 and pending for such framing and/or approval of Rules as aforementioned, all the processes for recruitment already undertaken in the Subordinate Courts of Assam, where no appointment order has been issued till date, shall stand halted/cancelled forthwith. By order Sd/- Gautam Baruah REGISTRAR (VIGILANCE)” 14. Taking into account the above, it would be seen that the eligibility criteria set out in the Notification dated 28.01.2016 read with the Notification dated 04.01.2021 which was made applicable to the District Judiciary of Assam, it stipulated that for the post of Grade-IV, the candidate must possess the minimum education qualification of Class-VIII standard and those who have passed HSSLC or above shall be ineligible to apply for the said post. 15. Taking into account the above and applying the same to the impugned advertisement, it would be seen that the requisite educational qualification set out in the advertisement is in accordance with the Notification dated 28.01.2016 read with the Notification No.1 dated 04.01.2021. Considering the above, the second submission therefore made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 16. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground for issuance of any writ in the instant matter for which the instant petition stands dismissed. 17. The respondents are at liberty to proceed further with the advertisement so issued, if not already done.