Gujarat High Court
Roshniben Anilbhai Gavit vs State Of Gujarat on 8 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5994 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6092 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6422 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ROSHNIBEN ANILBHAI GAVIT & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIRAV R MISHRA(6140) for the Petitioners
MR PARTH PATEL, AGP for the Respondent No. 1 - State
MR DG SHUKLA(1998) for the Respondent No. 2 - Gujarat Panchayat
Service Selection Board
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 08/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since the issue involved in these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is identical, the legal submissions and the averments raised are similar, with consent of the learned advocates, all these matters are heard together by this Court.
Page 1 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined
2. The present petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are filed by the petitioners inter alia mainly praying that the degree of B.S.C. in Medical Technology be treated at par and equivalent to B.S.C. in Chemistry / Microbiology / Bio-chemistry and the said degree be considered as equivalent to Diploma in Laboratory Technician or Medical Laboratory Technician or Medical Laboratory Technology and thereby select the petitioners and issue the appointment orders accordingly.
3. Heard learned advocates.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Nirav R. Mishra for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are possessing the degree of B.S.C. in Medical Technology; and that they have applied for the post of Laboratory Technician (Class-III) pursuant to the advertisement in question; and that after the name of the petitioners appeared in the merit list, they were called upon for verification of the documents; and that they were orally informed by the respondent authorities that since the petitioners do not possess B.SS.C. in Chemistry or Microbiology or Biochemistry, they cannot be considered or eligible for appointment to the post in question; and that the petitioners clearly fulfills the second criteria for being Page 2 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined appointed to the post in question by holding a degree which is equivalent and higher to the diploma course; and that the respondent authorities have been changing their criteria and stand in considering the candidates to be appointed to the post in question; and that the advertisement was issued for total 526 posts and out of which, only 501 names have been included in the select list; and that earlier, this Court has, in case of another candidate, in Special Civil Application No.7078 of 2016, in similar facts, has directed to constitute a Committee of Experts who had opinied that B.S.C. in Medical Laboratory Technician is higher course and can be considered valid for Diploma in Laboratory Technician Course. He has submitted that these petitions may be allowed. 5.1 Per contra, learned advocate Mr.D.G. Shukla for contesting respondent No.2 - Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board ('the Board' for short) has vehemently opposed these petitions. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.2 and has submitted that the process for the post in question has already been completed in the year 2017; and that the petitioners have not joined the candidates who have been selected and recommended for appointment by the authorities, therefore, these petitions are barred by non-joinder of necessary parties; and that the petitioners suppressed the Page 3 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined material information and misleading the respondent authorities while filling up their online applications for the post in question; and that while making the online applications, the petitioners have mentioned their educational qualification as Bachelor's degree in Microbiology and Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology, whereas the actual educational qualification of the petitioners is Bachelor of Science with Medical Technology only; and that the petitioners had thereby given wrong information in their online applications, therefore on this ground alone, these petitions may be dismissed. He has further submitted that the candidates who have applied online were called for written test by provisionally permitted them to appear in the written test by the respondent authorities and in turn, the Board had declared the provisional merit list; and that whoever had cleared the return test were included in the provisional merit list by the respondent authorities; and that they were called for verification of certificates and other details personally; and that the recruitment for the post in question is governed by the Laboratory Technician, Class-III, Recruitment Rules, 2013 and Laboratory Technician, Class-III, Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2016; and that the basic educational qualification required is Bachelor's degree in Chemistry or Microbiology or Biochemistry as per the said recruitment rules, whereas the petitioners are possessing Page 4 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined Bachelor degree in Medical Technology only and therefore, they are not eligible for the said post in question. 5.2 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of : (i) Gujarat Public Service Commission versus Dr.D.S. Maru reported in (2012) 3 GLR 1925 (ii) Special Civil Application No.11647 of 2015 and allied matters and (iii) Special Civil Application No.11668 or 2015.
5.3 He has further submitted that on the proceedings of Special Civil Application No.7078 of 2016, which is relied upon by learned advocate for the petitioners, where the very learned advocate was appeared, who is appearing on behalf of the petitioners in these petitions and he did not press this application at the relevant point of time in view of the report submitted by the Expert Committee; and that in the said petition, the very advertisement is challenged by another candidate by raising the very issue. He has submitted that these petitions may be dismissed.
6. Learned AGP Mr.Parth Patel for the State has submitted that there is no role of the State in the process of selecting candidates finally. He has submitted that the entire process for selection of the candidates is to be done by Page 5 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined respondent No.2 - Board only. He has submitted that the Board has acted as per the advertisement and the selection is made on the basis of the eligible candidates who fulfill the criteria fixed by the Board by way of advertisement. The entire process has been done as per the rules. He has submitted that these petitions may be dismissed.
7. In rejoinder, learned advocate or the petitioners has submitted that the eligibility criteria laid down by the respondent authorities for qualification to the post of Laboratory Technician is not found on the grounds of intelligible differentia; and that the degrees produced by the petitioners and the degrees which are asked for by the respondent authorities in the impuned advertisement are similar in terms of the subjects; and that the only difference is of the nomenclature of the degree and the courses offered under it. He has submitted that these petitions may be allowed.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have perused the documents available on record, including the affidavit in reply and rejoinder filed by the respective parties. 8.1 Respondent No.2 - Gujarat Panchayat Service Page 6 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined Selection Board issued public advertisement No.11/2016-17 for the post of Laboratory Technician in various District Panchayats.
8.2 The said recruitment for the post in question is governed by the Laboratory Technician, Class-III, Recruitment Rules, 2013 and Laboratory Technician, Class-III, Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2016.
8.3 The educational qualification required by the authorities is mentioned in the said advertisement, which is as under, qua the issue is concerned.
"A candidate shall,
(i) Possess a bachelor's degree in Chemistry or Microbiology or Bio-Chemistry obtained from any of the Universities established or incorporated by or under the central or a State act in India, or any other educational institution recognized as such or declared to be deemed as a University under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956;
(ii) Have passed the Diploma in Laboratory Technician or Medical Laboratory Page 7 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined Technician or Medical Laboratory Technology or P.G. Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology or one year Medical Laboratory Technician Training Course or Laboratory Technician Training Course obtained from any of the Government Recognized institutes or Universities established or incorporated by or under the Central or a State Act in India or any other educational institutions recognized as such or declared to be deemed as a University under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956;"
8.4 The petitioners had submitted their online applications and thereby submitting that they are possessing Bachelor's degree in Microbiology is basic educational qualification and Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology is further educational qualification as required for the said post. 8.5 The Board had provisionally permitted all the candidates who had submitted their online applications for the writtne test held on 29.01.2017.
8.6 On 09.02.2017, the Board had declared the provisional merit list and thereby 759 candidates were called for original document verification.
Page 8 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined 8.7 In the said provisional merit list, the Board had stipulated that the candidate around 1.5 times of the vacant posts are called for and inclusion of their names in the provisional merit list should not be construed that the candidate will be included in the final select list. Also, the candidates were further informed that their names have been included in the said provisional merit list on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the written examination and the details submitted by them in the online application, and as and when the candidate is called for verification of certificates and other details, the candidate should personally remain present for verification / confirmation of the certificates as well as other details and if the candidate fails to get the certificates and other details verified, the candidature will be automatically cancelled and the name of the candidate will not be included in the final select list. 8.8 In view of above, it transpires that the candidate shall possess : (i) Bachelor's degree in Chemistry / Microbiology / Biochemistry and (ii) a candidate shall have passed Diploma in Laboratory Technician / Medical Laboratory Technician / Medical Laboratory Technology / P.G. Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology / one year Medical Laboratory Technician Training Course / Laboratory Technician Training Course.
Page 9 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined 8.9 Indisputably, the petitioners possess the educational qualification of Bachelor of Science with Medical Technology only.
8.10 The requirement of the advertisement, as noted above, is more than the educational qualification possesses by the petitioners. The petitioners themselves conceded in the petitions that they possessed degree B.S.C. in Medical Technology.
9.1 By way of these petitions, the petitioners are trying to demonstrate that the degree which the petitioners are possessing of B.S.C. in Medical Technology is at par and equivalent to Bachelor's degree in Chemistry / Biochemistry / Microbiology as well as at par and equivalent to Diploma in Laboratory Technician or Medical Laboratory Technology. 9.2 Earlier, the very issue has been arisen from the very advertisement i.e. Advertisement No.11/2016-17 by one of the ineligible candidate before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.7078 of 2016, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court has directed to constitute a Committee of Experts, who may decide on this aspect, and the said Committee comprising of three experts has submitted their report by opining that B.S.C. in M.L.T. cannot be equated Page 10 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined with B.S.C. in Chemistry or Mircrobiology or Biochemistry, however, the Committee has further opined that however, B.S.C. of M.L.T. is higher course and can be considered valid for Diploma in Laboratory Technician Course. 9.3 Under the circumstances, the petitioners fulfill the second criteria for being appointed to the post of Laboratory Technicians, as sought for, of holding a degree which is equivalent and higher to the diploma course and therefore, the second criteria of educational qualification that a candidate shall have passed Diploma in Laboratory Technician / Medical Laboratory Technician / Medical Laboratory Technology / P.G. Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology / one year Medical Laboratory Technician Training Course / Laboratory Technician Training Course, is fulfilled by the petitioners, however, indisputably, the first criteria of basic educational qualification as required as per the advertisement impugned that a candidate shall possess Bachelor's degree in Chemistry or Microbiology or Biochemistry is not fulfilled by the petitioners.
9.4 The Board has permitted all the candidates, who have filled up online applications, for the post in question provisionally for written test.
Page 11 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined 9.5 The Board had prepared a Provisional Merit List of around 759 candidates from those who have cleared the written test and the candidates around 1.5 times of the vacant posts, who have cleared the written test, were called for verification of certificates and other details. It has been stipulated in the said provisional merit list that inclusion of name in the provisional merit list should not be construed that the candidate will be included in the final select list. the Board has further informed to all the candidates that their names have been included in the provisional merit list on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the written examination and the details submitted by them in the online application and as and when the candidate is called for verification of certificates and other details, the candidate should personally remain present for verification / confirmation of the certificate as well as other details and if the candidate fails to get the certificate, and other details verified, the candidature will be automatically cancelled and the name of the candidate will not be included in the final select list.
9.6 Indisputably, the petitioners have given wrong information in their online applications and on the basis of the said wrong information submitted by the petitioner in their online applications, they were permitted for written test Page 12 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined provisionally. The petitioners were well aware about the advertisement, more particularly the educational qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. Further, the petitioners were well aware about their actual educational qualification which they possess at the time of filling up their names online for the post in question. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners were aware that their actual educational qualification at the relevant point of time is Bachelor of Science with Medical Technology, whereas the educational qualifications as required for the post in question and as specifically mentioned in the advertisement itself and which is wrongly given in online applications by the petitioners, is Bachelor's degree in Microbiology, which they do not possess and possess only Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology. The petitioners at that time well aware that there do not possess the basic educational qualifications as required in the advertisement. Albeit, the petitioners have filled up there applications online by furnishing wrong information. 10.1 Further, an unsuccessful attempt was made by another candidate who has challenged the very advertisement and the very post in question before this Court by filing a petition being Special Civil Application No.7078 of 2016. Fortunately or unfortunately, the learned advocate for the petitioner/s was the same, who is appearing in these petitions Page 13 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined on behalf of the present petitioners. In that, a report from the Expert Committee was asked for by the Court and in view of the Expert Committee's report, that petition was not pressed by the petitioner/s / by the learned advocate for the petitioner/s of that petition. Therefore, the issue involved in these petitions has attained finality, as none of the unsuccessful candidate had carried out the said order before the higher forum.
10.2 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sajid Khan versus L.Rahmathullah and others reported in AIR 2025 SC 1300, more particularly paras : 18 to 21 thereof, which read as under.
"18. In circumstances where the appointing authority has not objected to the qualifications of the appellants and there is no apparent or glaring difference in the qualifications, we see no reason for courts to interfere and set-aside the appointments made after due consideration. It is the appointing authority which has to take the decision on whether the candidate possesses what is required by the post in cases of disputed equivalence. This Court has stated the same in categorical terms in its decision Anand Yadav v. State of U.P., (2021) 12 SCC 390. :Page 14 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined
32. We may also notice another important aspect i.e. the employer ultimately being the best judge of who should be appointed. The choice was of Respondent 2 who sought the assistance of an expert committee in view of the representation of some of the appellants. The eminence of the expert committee is apparent from its composition. That committee, after examination, opined in favour of the stand taken by the appellants, and Respondent 2 as employer decided to concur with the same and accepted the committee's opinion. It is really not for the appellants or the contesting respondent to contend how and in what manner a degree should be obtained, which would make them eligible for appointment by Respondent 2. (emphasis supplied)
19. The recruiting authority has scrutinised the qualifications before deciding that they satisfy what is enumerated in the advertisement. It is not the case of the respondents that the authority in the present case has not applied its mind in scrutinising the appellants diplomas. In Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P., (2020) 4 SCC 86.Page 15 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined this Court had an occasion to consider the approach to be adopted by the recruiting agency/employer while considering the issue of equivalence of qualifications and directed as under:
59. The equivalence of qualification as claimed by a candidate is matter of scrutiny by the recruiting agency/employer. It is the recruiting agency which has to be satisfied as to whether the claim of equivalence of qualification by a candidate is sustainable or not. The purpose and object of qualification is fixed by employer to suit or fulfil the objective of recruiting the best candidates for the job. It is the recruiting agency who is under obligation to scrutinise the qualifications of a candidate as to whether a candidate is eligible and entitled to participate in the selection.
More so when the advertisement
clearly contemplates that certificate
concerning the qualification shall be
scrutinised, it was the duty and
obligation of the recruiting agency to scrutinise the qualification to find out the eligibility of the candidates. The self-certification or self-declaration by a Page 16 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined candidate that his computer qualification is equivalent to CCC has neither been envisaged in the advertisement nor can be said to be fulfilling the eligibility condition.
(emphasis supplied)
20. Similarly, in Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362. it was held that :
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 re-writing 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, Page 17 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined 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.
21. Though there a number of decisions on this very principle, Mohd Shujat Ali v. Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC 76; Dr. B.L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan, 1982 (2) SCC 55; Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404 . we will conclude with a recent decision of this Court in Union of India v Uzair Imran, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1308 . emphasizing the restraint a court must exercise while determining equivalence between qualifications. The relevant portion is as under :
14. Normally, it is not the function of the court to determine equivalence of two qualifications and/or to scrutinise a Page 18 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined particular certificate and say, on the basis of its appreciation thereof, that the holder thereof satisfies the eligibility criteria and, thus, is qualified for appointment. It is entirely the prerogative of the employer, after applications are received from interested candidates or names of registered candidates are sponsored by the Employment Exchanges for public employment, to decide whether any such candidate intending to participate in the selection process is eligible in terms of the statutorily prescribed rules for appointment and also as to whether he ought to be allowed to enter the zone of consideration, i.e., to participate in the selection process. It is only when evidence of a sterling quality is produced before the court which, without much argument or deep scrutiny, tilts the balance in favour of one party that the court could decide either way based on acceptance of such evidence. (emphasis supplied)"
10.3 Under the circumstances, since the petitioners do not fulfill the basic educational qualification as prescribed in the advertisement in question and as conceded by them in Page 19 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined the petition/s itself, this Court finds that the petitioners do not possess the requisite educational qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement in question by the Board and therefore, the Board has rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioners. The petitioners are not qualified for the post in question advertised vide Advertisement No.11/2016-17.
11.1 Even otherwise, judicial review is not permitted in the matters of equivalence of qualification. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Unnikrishnan CV versus Union of India reported in (2023) 18 SCC 546, more particularly para : 7 thereof, which reads as under.
"7. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors, (2019) 2 SCC 404 it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition of various qualifications, etc. 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 Page 20 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined recruiting authority, to determine.
(Emphasis supplied)"
11.2 It would also be fruitful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shifana P.S. versus The State of Kerala reported in 2024 INSC 580, more particularly para : 14 thereof, which reads as under.
"14. This Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others, (2019) 2 SCC 404 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. Therefore, the equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that can be determined in the exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. (emphasis supplied) "
11.3 The contention / prayer of the petitioners that the degree which they were holding at the relevant point of time of B.S.C. in Medical Technology be treated at par and equaivalent to Diploma in Laboratory Technician or Medical Laboratory Technology and that the other University is Page 21 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined treated these courses/degrees equivalent, is concerned, the said argument does not hold water and is misconceived in light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shifana P.S. (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that equivalence is a technical academic matter, it cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the Board relating to equivalence should be by specific order or resolution, duly published. In the present case, the Board has specifically stated in the advertisement itself and asked for two educational qualifications noted above. Therefore, the fervent plea advanced by the learned advocate for the pettioners is not tenabel.
12. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any justifiable reason so as to interefer in the process of recruitment for the post in question. The petitions lacks merits. Therefore, these petitions are required to be dismissed and are dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted by this Court vide order dated 22.03.2017 stands vacated.
13. From the record, it transpires that, the very issue crops up as and when the advertisement for the post in question comes and the unqualified candidates like the petitioners to be left in lurch. Therefore, it would be expected Page 22 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/5994/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined from the Board as well as from the State that there would be some clarification regarding the equivalent degrees / courses as well as some check at the time of filing up online application, so that there may not be any ambiguity in the minds of the candidates and we can thereby avoid litigation, by keeping in mind the fact that the students have invested their valuable years in such studies aiming to get the job anywhere on that basis.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) M.H. DAVE Page 23 of 23 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Wed Aug 13 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 13 22:11:35 IST 2025