1 2025:CGHC:18576 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7443 of 2019 Pronounced on 7-4-2025 Reserved on 24-4-2025 1 - Smt. Sushma Upadhayay W/o Prabhakar Upadhyay Aged About 36 Years Working As Assistant Professor (Adhoc), Gurughasi Das Central University, Koni Bilaspur, R/o Quarter No. 4, Type - 5, Bharni, Group Camp Crpf Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1 - Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidylay ( A Central University) Through Registrar, Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidylay (A Central University), (A Central) Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Screening Committee (Forensic Science Department) Chhattisgarh Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidylay (A Central University), (A Central) Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Dr. Moumita Sinha Working As Assistant Professor (Adhoc), Forensic Science Guru Ghadidas Vishwavidylay (A Central University), (A Central) Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Dr. Arjun Rao I, Assistant Professor, (Adhoc) Forensic Science Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidylay (A Central University), (A Central) Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Hiya Sonchhatra, Adv. and Mr. Ashutosh Shrivastava, Adv. For Respondent No. 3 Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Adv. For Respondent No. 4 Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Adv. For Intervenor Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap and Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Adv. Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.04.25 13:22:24 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) C A V Order 1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, the action of the respondent in short listing the petitioner by adopting Ph.D. as essential qualification and not allowing petitioner to participate in the interview be kindly quashed and respondent be kindly directed to allow the petitioner to participate in the interview. 10.2 That, the list of allied subject (Annexure P/8) declared by the university be kindly quashed. 10.3 That, the respondent no.3 & 4 be kindly restrained from participating in interview to be held between 11/09/2019 to 14/09/2019. 10.4 That, the cost of the proceedings be kindly awarded. 10.5 Any other relief that the Hon'ble Court deem fit and appropriate may also kindly be granted in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that, respondent No. 1 issued an advertisement (Annexure P-5) on 3-6-2019 for appointment on various posts of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor including 7 posts of Assistant Professor in Forensic Science faculty, out of which, two posts are un-reserved, one post is reserved for Scheduled Caste, one post is reserved for Scheduled Tribe and 3 three posts are reserved for Other Backward Classes. The last date of submission of form was 15-7-2019, which was subsequently changed. Having requisite qualification, the petitioner also applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Forensic Science. After the first last date given for submission of form, respondent No. 1 issued notification providing that Biotechnology, Botany, Chemistry, Criminology, Zoology and Physics will be treated as allied subjects for appointment in the Forensic Science department. Though, the petitioner was having requisite qualification, despite that, she was not short-listed for interview, rather, her name was placed in the list (b) - ‘not short-listed, but eligible candidate (un-reserved category)’, whereas respondents No. 3 and 4 were short-listed for interview only because, they were having Ph.D. in Anthropology subject, which is not an allied subject of Forensic Science. Placing name of petitioner in the list (b) i.e. ‘not short-listed, but eligible candidate’ is nothing but depriving him malafidedly and in ulterior motive of nepotism and favoritism to respondents No. 3 and 4, as the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 (henceforth, referred to as ‘Regulations 2018’) issued by the University Grants Commission (henceforth, referred to as ‘UGC’), dated 18th July, 2018, does not provide Ph.D. as compulsory or requisite minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor, rather it requires only Master’s degree with 55% marks and candidate should have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) or CSIR, which petitioner possesses, despite that her nomination was kept in list (b)- ‘not short-listed, but eligible’, as such, she was not found eligible for interview in un-reserved 4 category, therefore, the petitioner filed instant writ petition seeking relifes as has been mentioned in opening paragraph. 3. 3. In response to the return filed by the respondent No. 1 and 2/University, the petitioner has filed rejoinder stating inter alia that, none of the members of the Committee, which decided allied subjects for Forensic Science vide Annexure P-8, are expert of the Forensic Science rather, they were experts of other discipline, therefore, deciding allied subject by such incompetent committee is against the UGC guidelines/regulations. The petitioner in pursuance of interim order dated 13-9-2019 passed by this Court, was allowed to participate in interview, then she came to know that the Interview Committee/Board has not been constituted as per UGC Regulations, as the Committee members were not having required status/qualification as provided in the Regulation 5.1. 4. Respondents No. 1 and 2, who are the main contesting party in instant writ petition, have filed their return pleading therein that, though the petitioner was having minimum requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor Forensic Science, but as per the Regulations, 2018 issued by the UGC, minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor, apart from 55% marks in master’s degree, the candidate must also have cleared National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC or CSIR or a similar test accredited by the UGC, like SLET/SET or who are or have been awarded a Ph.D. degree in accordance with University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for award of M.Phil/Ph.D. degree) Regulations, 2009 or 2016. Further, in the Table 3(A) of the Appendix II of the Regulations, 2018, criteria for short- 5 listing the candidates for interview for the post of Assistant Professor in university, has also been provided. In this marking pattern, for under- graduate / post graduate degree, M.Phil, Ph.D. degree, NET, NET with JRF, SLET/SET, Teaching and research publications, different marks have been provided to be given to the candidates. In this criteria, a candidate who has only NET award, has been given 5 marks, a candidate who has NET with JRF has been 7 marks, a candidate who has Ph.D. has been given 30 marks, etc. The University has also been given right to decide the numbers of candidates to be called for interview. Respondent/University has done the scrutiny of applications to short-list the candidates following all the criteria specified by the University Grants Commission. This fact was also considered in the meeting of Standing Committee of the Academic council held on 26-9-2019. The Standing Committee of the Academic Council has also resolved to keep a broader cut-off by calling 25 candidates against one post in the interest of candidates and to increase the competition. The Standing Committee of the Academic Council in its meeting dated 17-7-2019 has authorized the Scrutiny Committee, which comprises of the Dean of the School and Head of the Department, who have knowledge to decide on the relevance and allied nature of the subject. 4.1 It is further pleaded by respondents No. 1 and 2 that, since UGC provides liberty to the University to decide the relevance of the subject/inter-disciplinary nature of subjects, the matter was discussed in the meeting of the Standing Committee of the Academic Council in meeting held on 31-5-2019 and it was resolved that, Biotechnology, Botany, Chemistry, Criminology, Zoology, and Physics be approved as allied subjects for the 6 Forensic Science. In this regard, recommendations of the Committee was approved by the Standing Committee of the Academic Council in its meeting held on 3-7-2019, which was approved by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 9-8-2019 (Annexure R-1/1). 4.2 It is further pleaded that, though the petitioner possesses the qualification of M.Sc. and NET in Forensic Science, but she does not have Ph.D. degree, whereas the respondents No. 3 and 4 not only possess qualification of M.Sc. and NET in Forensic Science, but they also possess Ph.D. (Anthropology) as additional qualification and, therefore, respondents No. 3 and 4 have been awarded 30 marks as per Regulation 2018, which was not awarded to the petitioner, as she was not having Ph.D., therefore, her name was placed in list (b) - ‘not short-listed, but eligible candidate’ and as such, she was not found eligible for interview as 50 candidates who were more qualified and having additional qualification, have been short-listed. Thus, short-listing of candidates has been done in accordance with the UGC regulations, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Respondents No. 3 and 4 have filed their respective replies stating inter alia that, they are having requisite qualification along with additional qualification of Ph.D,. (Anthropology), as such, they are more qualified then the petitioner. It is further pleaded that, they have obtained their Ph.D. degree in the subject of Anthropology, which is one of the inter- disciplinary subject of Forensic Science, as Forensic Science includes study of Physics, Chemistry, Anthropology, Ontology, Toxicology etc and every university and academic institution has Forensic Anthropology as a core subject. The UGC has already answered the issue that relevance of the 7 subject or inter-disciplinary nature of the subject is to be decided by the appointing authority with the help of subject experts. Short-listing of respondents No. 3 and 4 has been done in accordance with the UGC Regulations, as such, their short-listing for interview does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are two limbs of his argument, first, the petitioner is well qualified and also fulfilled the eligibility criteria prescribed by the UGC for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor, but respondent/University arbitrarily and playing favoritism, denied the candidature of the petitioner while short-listing the candidates for interview, only because, the petitioner is not having Ph.D. degree, whereas having Ph.D. degree is not proscribed by the Regulations, 2018 as minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor. Secondly, the respondents No. 3 and 4 have been short-listed only because they are having Ph.D. They possess Ph.D. degree in the Anthropology subject, which is not allied subject of Forensic Science. As such, they ought not have been granted additional 30 marks. He further submits that the University has notified Biotechnology, Botany, Chemistry, Criminology, Zoology and Physics as allied subjects of Forensic Science without rhymes and reasons, which is in complete contravention of the Regulations, 2018 as the Committee which decided the allied subjects was not competent to decide the issue and such power cannot be delegated by the Academic Council. In this regard, he relied on the decision of Ghan Shyam Pal Vs. Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna University and anr. [Judgment dated 4-8-2023 in WP(S/B) No. 204/2021 of learned Division 8 Bench of High Court of Uttarakhand] and Tripura High Court in the case of Kamal Deb Vs. Tripura Public Service Commission represented by the Secretary and others [2024 SCC OnLine Tri 147]. 7. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, assisted by Ms. Hiya Sonchhatra, Adv. and Mr. Ashutosh Shrivastava, Adv. appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 / University , referring to its reply, would submit that, though the petitioner was having minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor, but she was not having Ph.D., therefore, she was not awarded 30 marks for additional qualification, which was awarded to the respondents No. 3 and 4, as they were having Ph.D. in the subject of Anthropology. Learned Sr. Counsel referring to Table 3-A of the Appendix -II of the Regulations 2018, would submit that, aforesaid appendix provides criteria for short listing of candidates for interview for the post of Assistant Professor in Universities. In this regard, different numbers have been provided for different degrees, in which, it has been provided that candidates who have Ph.D. have been provided to be given 30 marks. Referring to Point No. 29 of General Instructions to the candidates, he would submit that, it is upon the University to decide the number of candidates to be called for interview and even if, a candidate possesses prescribed qualification, the same will not entitle him for being called for interview. It is further submitted that, the matter relating to short-listing of candidates was considered in the Standing Committee of the Academic Council in its meeting held on 26-9-2019. The Standing Committee of Academic Council has resolved to keep a broader cut-off by calling 25 candidates against one post in the interest of candidates and to increase competition. The Standing 9 Committee in its meeting dated 17-7-2019 has authorized the Scrutiny Committee, which comprises of the Dean of the School and the Head of the Department, who have knowledge of subject to decide on the relevance and allied nature of subject. Therefore, contention of petitioner that, members of the Committee were not competent to decide allied subjects, has no force. It is further submitted that, it is settled preposition of law that, to decide equivalence of subject/ allied subjects is not a function of Court under judicial review. He further submits that, respondents No. 3 and 4, apart from having minimum requisite qualification, also have additional qualification of Ph.D., though in the subject of Anthropology, but for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor, Ph.D. degree in relevant field is not essential criteria, rather as per Table 3A of Appendix II of the Regulations, 30 marks are given to the candidate having Ph.D. as additional qualification, which was given to private respondents No. 3 and 4, but the petitioner was not having Ph.D., therefore, she was not short-listed for interview. Though in pursuance of interim order dated 13-9-2019 passed by this Court, she was allowed to participate in the interview, but she was not short-listed and entitled for interview, which is in accordance with the Regulations 2018 issued by the UGC. Therefore, she is not entitled to get any relief sought for by her, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for private respondents No. 3 and 4 relied on the return filed by them and they also extended their support to the contention made by learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the prties and perused the 10 material available on record with utmost circumspection. 10. As per Regulations 2018, minimum qualification for appointment of teaching faculty for discipline of Art, Commerce, Humanities, Law, Social Science, Science, Languages, Library Science, Physical Education and Journalism in Mass Communication is as under :- “1.3 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR Eligibility (A or B): A. i) A Master's degree with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point-scale wherever the grading system is followed) in a concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university. ii) Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC or the CSIR, or a similar test accredited by the UGC, like SLET/SET or who are or have been awarded a Ph. D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil./Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 or 2016 and their amendments from time to time as the case may be exempted from NET/SLET/SET: Provided, the candidates registered for the Ph.D. programme prior to July 11, 2009, shall be governed by the provisions of the then existing Ordinances/Bye- laws/Regulations of the Institution awarding the 11 degree and such Ph.d. candidates shall be exempted from the requirement of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/I nstitutions subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions :- a) The Ph.D. degree of the candidate has been awarded in a regular mode; b) The Ph.D. thesis has been evaluated by at least two external examiners; c) An open Ph.D. viva voce of the candidate has been conducted; d) The Candidate has published two research papers from his/her Ph.D. work, out of which at least one is in a refereed journal; e) The candidate has presented at least two papers based on his/her Ph.D work in conferences/seminars sponsored/funded/supported by the UGC/ICSSR/ CSIR or any similar agency. The fulfillment of these conditions is to be certified by the Registrar or the Dean (Academic Affairs) of the University concerned. Note: NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Masters Programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC, like SLET/SET. 12 OR B. The Ph.D degree has been obtained from a foreign university/institution with a ranking among top 500 in the World University Ranking (at any time) by any one of the following: (i) Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) (ii) the Times Higher Education (THE) or (iii) the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) of the Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Shanghai). Note: The Academic score as specified in Appendix II (Table 3A) as given in UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education, 2018 for Universities, shall be considered for short-listing of the candidates for interview only, and the selections shall be based only on the performance in the interview. 1.2 ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR Eligibility: i) A good academic record, with a Ph.D. Degree in the concerned/allied/relevant disciplines. ii) A Master's Degree with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point-scale, wherever the grading system is followed). iii) A minimum of eight years of experience of teaching and/or research in an academic/research position equivalent to that of Assistant Professor in a University, College or Accredited Research Institution/industry with a minimum of seven publications in the peer-reviewed or UGC-listed journals and a total research score of Seventy five 13 (75) as per the criteria given in Appendix II, Table 2 as given in UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education, 2018. 1.3 PROFESSOR Eligibility (A or B): A. i) An eminent scholar having a Ph.D. degree in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline, and published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with, a minimum of 10 research publications in the peer-reviewed or UGC- listed journals and a total research score of 120 as per the criteria given in Appendix II, Table 2 as given in UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education, 2018. ii) A minimum of ten years of teaching experience in university/college as Assistant Professor/Associate Professor/Professor, and/or research experience at equivalent level at the University/National Level Institutions with evidence of having successfully guided doctoral candidate. OR B. An outstanding professional, having a Ph.D. degree in the relevant/allied/applied disciplines, from any academic institutions (not included in A above) / 14 industry, who has made significant contribution to the knowledge in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline, supported by documentary evidence provided he/she has ten years' experience.” 11. Perusal of aforesaid Regulation shows that, minimum eligibility criteria for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor is Master’s degree with 55% marks along with National Eligibility Test (NET), or CSIR or SLET/SET or (B) Ph.D. degree obtained from a foreign university along with qualifications mentioned in 1.3 above. Thus, having Ph.D. degree is not required as eligibility criteria for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor. 12. Criteria for short-listing of candidates for interview for the post of Assistant Professor in University has also been provided in Regulations 2018 in form of Table 3-A, which is reproduced hereinbelow :- “Table: 3 A Criteria for Short-listing of Candidates for Interview for the Post of Assistant Professors in Universities :- Sr. No. Academic Record Score 1. Graduation 80% & Above =15 60% to less than 80%= 13 55% to less than 60% =10 45% to less than 55%-05 2. Post - Graduation 80% & above = 25 60% to less than 80%=23 55% (50% in case of SC/ST/OBC (non- creamy layer)/PWD) to less than 60% = 20 3. M.Phil 60% & 55% to less than 60%=05 15 above = 07 4. Ph.D. 30 5. NET with JRF 07 NET 05 SLET/SET 03 6 Research Publications (2 marks for each research publications published In Peer-Reviewed or UGC- listed Journals) 10 7. Teaching/Post Doctoral Experience (2 marks for one year each) 10 8. Awards Intenational/National Level (Awards given by International Organisations/ Government of India /Government of India recognised National Level Bodies) 03 State-Level (Awards given by State Government) 02 13. Perusal of Table 3A shows that for short-listing of candidates for interview, different separate numbers have been provided in the Regulation to be given to the candidates for different degrees like, for Graduation, 15 marks, Post Graduation 25 marks, M.Phil 7 marks, Ph.D. 30 marks, NET with 16 JRF 7 marks, NET 5 marks, SLET/SET 3 marks etc. A candidate, who is having additional degree/qualification will get more marks then the candidate who is having only minimum qualification. 14. In instant case, undisputedly, the petitioner was having only minimum requisite qualification and she was not having Ph.D. degree, therefore, she was awarded marks for her qualification but was not awarded marks for Ph.D. as she was not having the same. On the other hand, private respondents No. 3 and 4 were having Ph.D. degree, therefore, they have been awarded 30 marks for that degree and these additional marks makes difference between the petitioner and the respondents No. 3 and 4 for not short-listing for interview. As such, not short-listing the petitioner for interview, rather keeping her in list (b) ‘not short-listed, but eligible’ is found to be just and proper and no illegality in this regard is found. Rather, since private respondents No. 3 and 4 were having additional qualification of Ph.D. degree apart from minimum qualification, therefore, short-listing them for interview is found to be in accordance with Table 3A of Regulations 2018. 15. It is also apt to be noted here that as per Point No. 29 of the ‘General Instructions to the Candidateh’, which was also published in the advertisement dated 3-6-2019, it is the right of the University to decide criteria for short-listing of candidate. Point No. 29 is reproduced as under :- "29. The prescribed qualifications and experience will be minimum and the mere fact that a candidate possessing the same will not entitle him for being called for interview. The University may design its own criteria for shortlisting and will have the right to restrict the 17 candidates and shortlist most suitable candidates to be called for interview to a reasonable number on the basis of qualifications and experience higher than the minimum prescribed or by any other condition that may deem fit." Having considered aforesaid guidelines and criteria for short- listing of candidates shown in Table 3A, it cannot be said that, not short- listing the petitioner for interview and short-listing of respondents No. 3 and 4 for interview is against the Regulations issued by the UGC. 16. So far as contention of learned counsel for petitioner that, private respondents No. 3 and 4 are having Ph.D. degree in the subject of Anthropology, which is not an allied / concerned subject of Forensic Science, is concerned, Regulation 2018 does not contemplate Ph.D. as requisite minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor, rather, it is only one of eligibility criteria apart from others, but as per Table 3A, if any candidate has minimum qualification and he also possess Ph.D. degree, then, apart from awarding him marks for his qualification, he is also entitled to get 30 marks for his Ph.D. and for this, Table 3A does not stipulate that, Ph.D. degree must be in the concerned / allied / relevant discipline, as has been provided for the post of Associate Professor or Professor. Therefore, awarding 30 marks to the private respondents No. 3 and 4 is also not found to be illegal. As such, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that, awarding 30 marks to private respondents No. 3 and 4 for their Ph.D. degree is against the Regulations 2018, is not sustainable. 17. So far as argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner 18 with regard to taking decision by the University in respect of allied subject is concerned, it is well settled preposition of law that, equivalence of the subject ought not be decided by the Courts in exercise of power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent / allied subject, is a matter to be considered by recruiting authority and should not be determined by the Court in exercise of power of judicial review. 18. In this regard, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sk. Imtiyaz Ahmad [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sk. Imtiyaz Ahmad, (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, or the recruiting authority, to determine. 19. In the case of Unnikrishnan CV v. Union of India, [(2023) 18 SCC 546], a three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, while relying upon the earlier judgment in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal, [(2009) 1 SCC 610] held that equivalence is a technical academic matter, it cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the University relating to equivalence should be by specific order or resolution, duly published. 20. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in North Delhi Municipal 19 Corporation v. Kavinder [(2021) 11 SCC 353] has examined the eligibility conditions/criteria equivalence between qualifications prescribed and those obtained by the candidate in allied subject and also competent authority to determine equivalence scope of judicial interference. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held at paragraph 8 & 9 as under:— “8. While assessing merits of the rival contentions, we must at the outset have due regard to the basis which has been adopted by the first respondent in support of his contention that he fulfills the eligibility requirements. The categoric position of the first respondent is that during the course of the MBA degree programme, he had studied the subjects of Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations and Labour Legislation. Having regard to this position, the issue which falls for determination is whether this would lead the Court to the conclusion that the first respondent fulfills the eligibility requirements. The eligibility requirements stipulated in the advertisement are that the candidate must have a post graduate degree or diploma in (i) Social Work; or (ii) Labour Welfare; or (iii) Industrial Relations; or (iv) Personnel Management; or (v) in any other allied subject of a recognized University/institution or equivalent. 9. The first respondent completed the MBA degree programme from Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak. The mark sheets which have been relied upon by the first respondent indicate that during the course of the second semester, he studied Human Resource Management as a subject. In the fourth semester, the first respondent had a course in Industrial Relations and Labour Legislation. Studying these two subjects would not lead to the conclusion that the first respondent holds a post graduate 20 degree or diploma in the disciplines which have been specifically spelt out in the advertisement or in any allied subject. The MBA degree cannot be regarded as allied to a post graduate degree or diploma in Social Work, Labour Welfare, Industrial Relations or Personnel Management. The recruitment was being made to the service of the appellant. The advertisement did not specifically provide how equivalence was to be established between a postgraduate degree/diploma in the subjects specified in the advertisement and a postgraduate degree/diploma in an allied subject. The appellant as an employer was best suited to judge whether the degree of the first respondent was in an allied subject. Unless this assessment was perverse or contrary to the requirements prescribed, the Tribunal had no reason to interfere. We are of the view that the Tribunal was manifestly in error in holding that the first respondent was qualified merely because he studied two subjects as a part of his MBA degree programme, namely, Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations and Labour Legislation. The High Court has simply affirmed the view of the Tribunal.” 21. Recently in the case of Shifana P.S. v. State of Kerala, (2024) 8 SCC 309, Hon’ble Supreme Court relying in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra) and Unnikrishnan CV (supra), has further reiterated that, equivalence of qualification is not a matter that can be determined in exercise of power of judicial review as to whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent or not, it is a matter for the State/recruiting authority to determine. 22. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, perusal of list of allied subject (Annexure P-8) shows that respondent/University has decided 21 Biotechnology, Botany, Chemistry, Criminology, Zoology and Physics as allied subject of Forensic Science and as per contention of petitioner herself, and her rejoinder, allied subjects were decided by the committee consisting of Dean of discipline along with other professors holding Ph.D. degree and the same has been approved by the Standing Committee of Academic Council of the University. 23. In the case of Kamal Deb (supra), referred by the petitioner, respondent No. 5 had pursued his career in the subject of political science at Graduation and Post Graduation level, he had also obtained Ph.D. degree in the subject of political science, but he has been appointed on the post of Assistant Professor in the subject of Education. But in instant case, private respondents No. 3 and 4 are having their master’s degree in Forensic Science and they also have other minimum requisite qualification, as such, facts of instant case are not similar to the case cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. Further in view of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforecited cases, examination of eligibility condition/criteria equivalence between qualifications prescribed and those obtained by the candidates in allied subject is not subject matter, rather, it is a technical academic matter, therefore, it would not be decided in exercise of power of judicial review, therefore, the case law of Ghan Shyal Pal (supra) relied by the petitioner is also not helpful to him. 24. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Therefore, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 25. Though, pursuant to the order dated 13-9-2019 passed by this Court, petitioner was permitted to participate in the interview, but in view of 22 this final order, the order 13-9-2019 has lost its efficacy, hence it is recalled and now it shall not be beneficial for the petitioner in any manner. 26. No order as to cost(s). 27. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak