[2025:RJ-JP:45544-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 436/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12640/2024 The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary, Ajmer Raj. ----Appellant Versus 1. Brijesh Meena S/o Shri Kishan Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Shyopura, Tehsil Deeg, Dist. Bharatpur Raj. (Rajasthan) ----Respondent 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To Government, Urban Development And Housing Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Raj. 3. The Deputy Secretary To Government, Urban Development And Housing Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Raj. ----Proforma Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 523/2024 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2874/2024 Lokesh Meena S/o Shri Mahesh Chand Meena, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of V/P Piloda, Tehsil Wazirpur, District Gangapurcity- 322205 At Present Resident Of 83/36, Sector-8, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus 1. Anirudh Sharma S/o Shri Damodar Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of 55/217, Rajat, Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ghooghara Ghati, Jaipur Road, Ajmer-305001 (Rajasthan). 3. Urban Planning Department, Through Its Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 4. Gorishankar Soni S/o Shri Rajendra Soni, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Near Topkhana, Khetri, Khetri, Dist. Neem Ka Thana (Old Dist. Jhunjhunu) Raj ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:45544-DB] (2 of 14) [SAW-436/2025] D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 705/2024 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2554/2024 The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary, Ajmer, Raj. ----Appellant Versus 1. Gorishankar Soni S/o Shri Rajendra Soni, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Near Topkhana, Khetri Tehsil Khetri Dist. Neem Ka Thana (Old Dist. Jhunjhunu), Raj. -----Respondent 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To Government, Urban Development And Housing Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Raj. ----Proforma Respondent D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 772/2024 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2874/2024 Urban Planning Department, Through Its Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Appellant Versus 1. Anirudh Sharma S/o Shri Damodar Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 55/217, Rajat Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondent 2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ghooghara Ghati, Jaipur Road, Ajmer (Rajasthan)- 305001 ----Proforma Respondent D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 69/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2874/2024 Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ghooghara Ghati, Jaipur Road, Ajmer (Rajasthan)-305001. ----Appellant Versus 1. Anirudh Sharma S/o Shri Damodar Sharma, Aged About [2025:RJ-JP:45544-DB] (3 of 14) [SAW-436/2025] 32 Years, R/o 55/217, Rajat Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondent 2. Urban Planning Department, Through Its Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Proforma Respondent D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1003/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12640/2024 Lokesh Meena S/o Shri Mahesh Chand Meena, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of V/p Piloda, Tehsil Wazirpur, Gangapurcity, District Sawai Madhopur-322205 At Present Resident Of 86/36, Sector-8, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus 1. Brijesh Meena S/o Shri Kishan Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Shyopura, Tehsil Deeg, Dist. Bharatpur (Raj.) 2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer (Rajasthan) 3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To Government, Urban Development And Housing Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Raj. 4. The Deputy Secretary To Government, Urban Development And Housing Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mirza Faisal Baig Mr. Tanveer Ahamad Mr. Illiyas Khan Mr. S.M. Sharma, AAAG Mr. Abhishek Sharma Ms. Pooja Sharma Mr. Vishal Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma Mr. Sandeep Pathak Mr. Arnav Singh Mr. Palash Gupta [2025:RJ-JP:45544-DB] (4 of 14) [SAW-436/2025] HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Judgment Date of conclusion of arguments : 12/11/2025 Date on which judgement was reserved : 12/11/2025 Whether the full judgement or only the operative part is pronounced : Full judgement Date of pronouncement : 27th/11/2025 (Per Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice) 1. Challenge in the aforesaid special appeals is to the judgement passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11.07.2024 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2874/2024, filed by Anirudh Sharma, and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2554/2024, filed by Gorishankar Soni, and the order dated 02.08.2024 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12640/2024, filed by Brijesh Meena, whereby, the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners were allowed. Directions given by the learned Single Judge in the detailed judgement dated 11.07.2024 read as under: "22. Therefore, cumulatively considering the fact that the dynamic nature of the world of education results into changes in the nomenclature of certain degrees with time despite the syllabus and curriculum being stagnant; that institutes/universities often nomenclate degrees as per their own independent and subjective understanding of the curriculum, even when the said curriculum may be overlapping and synonymous to a differently nomenclatured degree; that the underlying intent behind the issuance of the clarification dated 23.10.2020 was to foreground and bring ashore the fact that the eligibility of a candidate for recruitment or promotion should not be solely based on the nomenclature of a degree, rather the same should take into consideration the fact of the courses studied by the candidate in order to obtain such a degree coupled with the syllabi of said courses; that vide certificate dated 22.12.2023, after duly considering the syllabus and curriculum, the University held that the degree of the petitioner i.e. M.Tech. (Transportation Engineering) shall be equivalent to the degree of M.Tech. (Traffic and Transportation Planning); that the order dt. [2025:RJ-JP:45544-DB] (5 of 14) [SAW-436/2025] 08.02.2024, as passed by the expert committee constituted by the respondents, which is purely non-speaking in nature with no whisper of consideration of the syllabus and curriculum of the two courses, can be said to be violative of wednesbury’s principle; that cryptic and arbitrary orders passed by the employer cannot take precedence over detailed orders based on discernible rationale and logic, thereby paving way for judicial interference, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the instant petition in terms of the prayers so advanced. 23. As a result, in light of the foregoing observations, this Court deems it appropriate to hold that whilst covering all squares, the degree held by the petitioner i.e. M.Tech. (Transportation Engineering) is equivalent to M.Tech. (Traffic and Transportation Planning). 24. Accordingly, in terms of the above, the instant petition stands allowed in terms of the prayers so advanced. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of." 2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'RPSC') and the Urban Planning Department in their appeals pointed out that an advertisement was issued on 04.10.2022 for the post of Assistant Town Planner (for short, 'ATP'). 43 posts were advertised and the qualification prescribed for participating in the selection process were as under: "(i) "Bachelor's Degree in Engineering (Civil)/Architecture/ Planning with Post Graduate Degree in Urban/City/Regional Planning/Traffic & Transportation Planning or M.Tech. in Planning or M.Plan. (Urban/Regional/ Traffic & Transport/ Environment) or equivalent. Or Bachelor's Degree in Planning/Architecture from a recognised Institute/University established by law in India with 2 years' experience in the field of Town Planning." (ii) Working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagari Script and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture." 3. The writ petitions came to be filed by the writ petitioners as they contended that although they possess qualification which was equivalent to M.Tech. (Traffic and Transportation Planning), the RPSC has refused to consider their candidature for appointment to the post of ATP. It was further prayed by Anirudh Sharma in his writ petition as under: [2025:RJ-JP:45544-DB] (6 of 14) [SAW-436/2025] "i) issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent no.1-RPSC to consider the Petitioner for appointment on the post of ATP pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.10.2022; ii) issue appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent no.1-RPSC to consider the educational qualification of the 'Petitioner i.e. M.Tech. (Transportation Engineering) to be equivalent to M.Tech. (Traffic & Transportation Planning), as determined by Rajasthan Technical University, Kota; iii) issue appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent no.1-RPSC to publish the final result of the Petitioner pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.10.2022 and counselling convened on 21.12.2023; iv) Any other appropriate direction or order which is deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court may also be issued/passed in favour of the humble Petitioner and in the interest of justice." 4. The writ petitioners came out with the contentions that as per the advertisement issued, they were entitled to be considered as eligible as they possess the qualification of M.Tech. (Transportation Engineering). While Anirudh Sharma passed the degree of M.Tech. in Transport Engineering from Kautilya Institute of Technology and Engineering, Jaipur, which was affiliated to Rajasthan Technical University, Kota, Gorishankar Soni did his M.Tech. from Apex University, Jaipur and Brijesh Meena from National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra. 5. All the writ petitioners had participated in the competitive examination held by the RPSC and have qualified the examination, whereafter, they were called for counselling to verify their credentials. At that stage, their candidature was declared to be ineligible and they were informed that their degree do not fulfil the required educational qualification provided under the advertisement and their final result was not declared. 6. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitioners to participate in the selection process for appointment to the post of ATP provisionally. [2025:RJ-JP:45544-DB] (7 of 14) [SAW-436/2025] 7. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2874/2024: Anirudh Sharma Vs. R.P.S.C. and Anr., the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 11.07.2024, held that All India Council for Technical Education (for brevity, ‘AICTE’) vide order dated 23.10.2020 clarified that mere nomenclature ought not to be analysed for assessing the equivalence of degrees. Syllabi and course material would have to be taken into consideration for the purpose. It proceeded further to clarify that the body best equipped to ascertain equivalence shall be the University itself or the State. In the case of writ petitioner Anirudh Sharma, the writ petitioner placed on record the certificate issued by the Rajasthan Technical University (hereinafter referred as, ‘RTU’) dated 22.12.2023 wherein the Dean (Academic Affairs) of RTU certified that the qualification acquired by him from Kautilya Institute of Technology and Engineering, Jaipur and the degree of M.Tech. in Transport Engineering would be equivalent to Masters Degree in Traffic and Transportation Planning. Hence, the course incorporated subjects of Traffic and Urban Planning, Transport Planning and Sustainable Transportation. 8. The RPSC took a stand that so far as equivalence of qualification is concerned, the same is in exclusive domain of the State Government and the certificates of RTU placed before the Court which declared the qualification possessed by the writ petitioner to be equivalent to Masters Degree (M.Tech.) in Traffic and Transportation Planning vide certificate dated 22.12.2023 is not binding upon it. With the purpose to obtain equivalence from the State Government, the RPSC sent a letter to the State Government on 29.01.2024 and requested to get the [2025:RJ-JP:45544-DB] (8 of 14) [SAW-436/2025] departmental recommendation of educational qualification held to be equivalent in qualification, as mentioned in the advertisement. 9. It was contended by the RPSC that it had also sent reminder seeking clarification from the State Government, but the State Government had not come with the reply. The State was, therefore, asked to file their reply, and during pendency of the writ petition, the State proceeded to file reply and it was stated that the RPSC, after checking and reviewing the eligibility of the candidates, sent a letter dated 29.01.2024 to the State Government that there were nine candidates who possessed different qualification than the prescribed qualification in the advertisement and the UDH Department was requested to send its opinion, whereafter meeting of Departmental Committee took placed on 08.02.2024 wherein, equivalence of qualification possessed by the candidates was examined and opinion was recorded in the Note Sheet dated 08.02.2024 and it was held that the qualification possessed by one of the candidates, namely Jigisha Hasmukh Waghela was equivalent to the educational qualification prescribed under the advertisement and was inconsonance with the Rajasthan Town Planning Service Rules, 1966, while in respect of remaining candidates the education qualification possessed by them was not considered equivalent to the requisite educational qualification. The Note Sheet dated 08.02.2024 was placed on record. However, the court was not satisfied, then an additional affidavit was filed by Puneet Sharma posted as Senior Town Planner (HQ), CTP Office, Jaipur who placed along with the additional affidavit, the letter issued by the RPSC and the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the Chief Town [2025:RJ-JP:45544-DB] (9 of 14) [SAW-436/2025] Planner forming a Committee declaring equivalence and the Minutes of the Committee meeting held on 08.02.2024 wherein, he was one of the signatory. 10. The learned Single Judge considered the contents of the letter issued by the AICTE dated 23.10.2020 requiring the State Government and Universities to look into the syllabi and the course content to take a decision and held that the State Government did not apply its mind and the Minutes of the Meeting dated 08.02.2024 were completely non-speaking in nature, nor was there any consideration by the Committee relating to the syllabus or the course content. It also did not declare that the course and qualification of M.Tech (Transportation Engineering) was not equivalent to M.Tech (Traffic and Transportation Planning) and merely mentioning one of the course to be equivalent, the learned Single Judge proceeded to take a view from the certificate issued by the RTU which is a State run University, to hold that the writ petitioners possess the equivalent qualification as there was no decision treating it otherwise and allowed the writ petitions. 11. Learned Counsel for the RPSC has vehemently argued that the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained as the equivalence cannot be granted by the Court. He further submits that once the Committee of the State Government has reached to the conclusion that the qualification possessed by the writ petitioners-respondents was not equivalent to that of M.Tech. (Traffic and Transportation Planning) and, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to declare the equivalence. He further submits that so far as qualifications as laid down in the advertisement are concerned, the same are specifically [2025:RJ-JP:45544-DB] (10 of 14) [SAW-436/2025] mentioned, while the qualification which the writ petitioners possess has not been mentioned in the advertisement. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the impugned orders of equivalence have been passed wrongfully. 12. While hearing the appeals and perusing the record relating to formation of the Committee and to see whether there were any Minutes of the Committee wherein the issue relating to the equivalence of the courses was dealt, unfortunately, we could not find any proceedings of the Committee which met on 08.02.2024, which would have discussed the equivalence. Obviously, for the purpose of consideration of equivalence, the Committee was required to look into the course of studies of the concerned degree awarded by the concerned University and there would have been some application of mind with respect to the said course being suitable for the purpose for which the appointments were being made by the State Government through the selection conducted by the RPSC. 13. We also directed the State Authorities to place before us the qualifications of the Members of the Committee who were the Senior Officers of the concerned Departments. It is a case where a student who passed the course and had also studied in relevant subject is not being considered for appointment, although his qualification has not been declared inequivalent to the qualification as mentioned in the advertisement. We also notice that when the qualification acquired in various Universities, although may be having the same contents of studies, but the nomenclature of the degree awarded is different. The students cannot be deprived of the legally acquired qualification which is essentially in the same [2025:RJ-JP:45544-DB] (11 of 14) [SAW-436/2025] field as others. While the State Government has the power to prescribe a particular qualification for a post and also has power to declare equivalent qualifications to that particular qualification, for the purpose of appointment, which may be different from the equivalence granted by the University, but once there is an equivalence granted by the RTU, a Government University, the same cannot be rejected by the State without giving cogent reasons. In the present case, the Committee formed by the State for considering the equivalence for appointment on the post, has not given any reason nor it has declared the qualification to be unequal in any manner. Thus, the writ petitioners claim based on the certificate issued by the RTU cannot be easily ignored by us. 14. We find that the Committee formed for the purpose of assessing equivalence was of those who were in service. For declaring any subject to be equivalent to another, for State Authorities, the minimum requirement is that the Members of the Committee should be those who are well acquainted with different qualifications acquired by various Universities as recognised in the letter dated 23.10.2020 by the AICTE. When the premium body of the Union of India, i.e. AICTE, itself recognised the different nomenclatures, it is bounden duty of the concerned authority to conduct an exercise for declaration of equivalence. However, there appears to be malice in law as the concerned officer who is also the deponent contesting the case on behalf of the State Government before the learned Single Judge, becomes a Members of the Committee. There being no rationale to the decision taken on 08.02.2024, we reject its findings. [2025:RJ-JP:45544-DB] (12 of 14) [SAW-436/2025] 15. That apart, we also notice that even in the decision dated 08.02.2024 of the Committee, there is no mention that the qualification acquired by the concerned respective candidates was not equivalent. It only proceeded to declare one of the qualification as possessed by one of the candidates, as equivalent to the required educational qualification and is completely silent with regard to others. Taking note that the RTU is the University established by the State Government, qualification as laid down by the Dean would have relevance. We are also of the firm view that while the educational authorities may declare equivalence for the purpose of admission to their courses, the State Government would have an exclusive domain to examine the qualification and declare it equivalent with other qualification laid down under the Rules and under the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution and allow appointments based on equivalence. 16. In the present case, the State Government neither declared the qualification possessed by the writ petitioners as not equivalent nor declared it as equivalent. It is, therefore, not for this Court to hold the equivalence while this Court may plug-in the loopholes. When there is absence of interpretation of a particular provision of law, this Court would not venture into declaring equivalence of qualification which is purely based on examining the subject material and course passed by the concerned candidates. 17. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent of treating the qualification, as possessed by the writ petitioners, as equivalent to required qualification, as mentioned in the advertisement. [2025:RJ-JP:45544-DB] (13 of 14) [SAW-436/2025] However, at the same time, we direct the State Government to form a Committee which may at least consist of three Members of State Government, one Member from AICTE and one Member from RTU to examine the qualifications possessed by the writ petitioners and its equivalence to that of the qualifications as required under the advertisement and further, pass a speaking order. If the Committee, so constituted, reaches to the conclusion that the qualification as possessed by the writ petitioners is equivalent to the qualification as mentioned in the advertisement for the post of ATP, the State Government shall proceed accordingly. However, if the appointments are given, the writ petitioners would be treated to be appointed along with other candidates who have been appointed under the advertisement. Their inter-se merit shall be protected for the purpose of seniority and notional benefit could be granted for the period up to the date of appointment and actual benefits shall accrue from the date of appointment after making pay fixation accordingly. The entire exercise shall be conducted and concluded within a period of two months henceforth. 18. The Special Appeals Nos.436/2025, 705/2024, 772/2024 and 69/2025 are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 19. As regards the appeals filed by one of the candidates, Lokesh Meena, who had participated in the selection process, the contentions raised by him is that the writ petitioners-respondents, after participation in the selection process, could not have claimed equivalence. However, we find that the contention raised by him is wholly misconceived as vide order dated 19.02.2024, this Court [2025:RJ-JP:45544-DB] (14 of 14) [SAW-436/2025] had passed an interim order in favour of the writ petitioners allowing them to participate in the selection process and equivalence was required to be examined by the State and it is during pendency of the writ petitions that the orders have been passed which have been found to be illegal both by the learned Single Judge as well as by us. Hence, D.B. Civil Special Appeal Nos.523/2024 and 1003/2025 filed by Lokesh Meena are dismissed. 20. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Govind/Gaurav/160-165