[2025:RJ-JP:17852] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3257/2014 Divya Sharma D/o Shri Brajlal Sharma, aged about 34 years, R/o 190, New Chungi Naka, 80 Ft. Road Cornder, Sajjangarh Jhadole Road, Udaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Prinicpal Secretary, Department of Economics & Statistics, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director-Cum-Joint Secretary, Directorate of Economics & Statistics Departments, Yojna Bhawan, Jaipur. ----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 requisite educational qualification, which includes Graduation degree from any recognized University from Mathematics or Statistics or Economic [2025:RJ-JP:17852] (2 of 5) [CW-3257/2014] subject and certificates issued by the institutes mentioned in the Clause-V of the advertisement including 'O' Level or higher level certificate issued by DOEACC (NIELIT), which is 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. 3. The petitioner states that since she was possessing Diploma in Computer Programming and Application issued from Sargam Computer Training Centre, Udaipur and has also been signed by Project Director and DWDA Jaipur, therefore she was eligible for participating in the recruitment process for the aforesaid post. 4. 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 category of General Women, however, she has not been given appointment whereas the candidates securing lesser marks than her have been appointed and in quite surprising manner despite acquiring recognized qualification, her candidature has been wrongly rejected by the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that even the Department of Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India has issued budget and grant-in-aid to Sargam Kala Parishad, Udaipur and while issuing grant-in-aid, it has been prescribed that the Institute shall follow ‘O’ Level syllabus as prescribed by the Department of Electronics for the training course. As per the petitioner, the aforesaid document issued by the Ministry of HRD is sufficient to establish that the [2025:RJ-JP:17852] (3 of 5) [CW-3257/2014] certificate issued by the Sargam Computer Training Centre is recognized by the Central Government. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also indicated that one certificate dated 12.03.2014 has been issued by the Project Director of Women Empowerment, Women and Child Development Department, Udaipur certifying that the petitioner possesses Diploma in Computer Programming and Application issued by Sargam Computer Training Centre, which is being run with the help of HRD Department of Government of India and under the ageis of Women and Child Development Department of State Government. Hence, the respondents cannot arbitrarily reject the candidature of the petitioner by stating that the qualification possessed by the petitioner was not recognized. 7. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported rejection of candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the Diploma/Certificate issued by Sargam Computer Training Centre is not a recognized qualification so merely for the reason that some grant-in-aid aid has been issued by the Government of India for conducting skill training or for the reason that the certificate was counter-signed by the Project Director DWDA, Udaipur would not recognize the qualification prescribed by the petitioner. 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-fulfillment of required computer qualification. [2025:RJ-JP:17852] (4 of 5) [CW-3257/2014] 8. I have carefully heard both the counsel for the parties and examined the record. 9. 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 and Advertisement. The advertisement also reflects specific qualification, which is required to be possessed by the candidates applying for recruitment pursuant to such advertisement. 10. While comparing the certificate possessed by the petitioner, which has been issued by the Sargam Computer Training Centre qua the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement, this Court finds that the petitioner is not possessing the qualification as indicated in the advertisement. 11. It is also settled that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot declare 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. 12. The documents placed on record by the petitioner cannot be taken as recognition document issued by any other Government authorities. Certificate issued by the Project Director of Women and Child Development Department also does not indicate that the qualification issued by the petitioner is recognized by the [2025:RJ-JP:17852] (5 of 5) [CW-3257/2014] Government; nor the document relating grant-in-aid aid by the Central Government would confer any recognition upon the diploma issued by the Sargam Computer Training Centre. 13. 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. 14. No order as to costs. 15. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/212