[2025:RJ-JP:17852] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3261/2014 Babu Lal Gajraj S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad, Aged about 28 years, R/o Village Chala, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Department of Economics and Statistics, Gov. Secretariat, Jaipur through its Secretary (Raj.) 2. Director and Dy. Secretary, Department of Economics and Statistics, Yojna Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vimal Kumar Jain, Adv. with Mr. Lokesh Parihar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Minakshi Jain, G.C HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 28/04/2025 1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition is aggrieved by Annexure-12 issued by Director-cum-Joint Secretary of Economic and Statistics Department whereby the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Computer has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one advertisement dated 19.06.2013, was issued by the respondent- Department whereby the applications were invited from eligible persons for recruitment on the post of Computer. In the aforesaid advertisement, Clause-V deals with required educational qualifications, which includes Graduation degree from any recognized University from Mathematics or Statistics or Economic subject and certificates issued by the institutes mentioned in the [2025:RJ-JP:17852] (2 of 4) [CW-3261/2014] Clause-V of the advertisement including 'O' Level or higher level certificate issued by DOEACC (NIELIT), which are under control of Electronics Department, Government of India; or Degree or Diploma issued by any recognized Government in the subject of Computer Science/Computer Application/Information Technology. The petitioner states that since he was possessing Diploma in Computer Programming and Application issued from Nobal IT Educare Pvt. Ltd. therefore he was eligible for participating in the recruitment process for the aforesaid post. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after undergoing the entire recruitment process, petitioner has secured more marks than the last cut off marks issued for the General category, however, he has not been given appointment whereas the candidates securing lesser marks than him have been appointed and in quite surprising manner despite acquiring recognized qualification, his candidature has been wrongly rejected by the respondents. 4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported rejection of candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the Diploma/Certificate issued by Nobal IT Educare Pvt. Ltd. is not a recognized qualification. It has been categorically stated in the reply to the writ petition that Diploma possessed by the petitioner has neither been recognized by UGC or by State Government or even by Central Government, AICTE and DEC (Distant Education). Hence, the respondents have committed no mistake whatsoever by rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of non-fulfilment of required computer qualification. [2025:RJ-JP:17852] (3 of 4) [CW-3261/2014] 5. I have carefully heard both the counsel for the parties and examined the record. 6. It is settled position of law that recruitment for service in the State Government can be conducted strictly in accordance with the Rules framed by the Government and as per the eligibility criteria shown in the Rules & Advertisement. The advertisement also reflects specific qualification, which is required to be possessed by the candidates applying for recruitment pursuant to such advertisement. 7. While comparing the certificate possessed by the petitioner, which has been issued by the Nobal IT Educare Pvt. Ltd. qua the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement, this Court finds that the petitioner is not possessing the qualification as indicated in the advertisement. 8. It is also settled that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot declare the equivalence of any qualification qua the qualifications mentioned in the Rules/advertisement. Equivalence of qualifications solely falls within the ambit of experts and can be done only by the concerned Government authorities/bodies. In the instant case, the respondents have categorically stated on affidavit that the qualification possessed by the petitioner is not recognized either by UGC, Central Government, State Government, AICTE or DEC. 9. Petitioner has utterly failed to place on record any document in order to rebute the aforesaid statement made in reply to the writ petition. [2025:RJ-JP:17852] (4 of 4) [CW-3261/2014] 10. In view of the above, no interference whatsoever is called for in the instant writ petition. The writ petition filed by the petitioner, being devoid of any merit and substance, is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. 12. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/213