[2025:RJ-JP:17549] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3856/2022 1. Saurabh Devjani S/o Shri P.d. Devjani, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 52/563, Rajasthan Housing Board Pratap Nagar, Sanganer Jaipur Rajasthan. 2. Sudhanshu Joshi S/o Yogendra Kumar Joshi, R/o 69, Goverdhan Colony, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Metro Pillar No. 88, Jaipur Rajasthan. 3. Bharat Sharma S/o Shri Ladhuram Sharma, R/o Village Ramka, Tehsil Rawatsar District Hanumangarh Rajasthan. 4. Manish Chand Sain S/o Shri Satish Chand Sain, R/o 38-A, Laxmi Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government Secretariat Jaipur. 2. The Director, Department of Agriculture, Rajasthan, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur. 3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board Jaipur, through Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute Premises, Durgapura Jaipur Rajasthan through its Secretary. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Chaudhary, Adv. with Mr. Nikhil Pal Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 25/04/2025 1. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition with a prayer to issue directions against the respondents to consider the Qualification/Vocational Course in Micro Irrigation as prescribed eligibility and, accordingly, candidature of the petitioners may be [2025:RJ-JP:17549] (2 of 4) [CW-3856/2022] considered and appointment may be given to them on the post of Agriculture Supervisor pursuant to advertisement No.1/2021 dated 05.02.2021. 2. The petitioners have come out with a case that they are possessing their qualification as prescribed in the advertisement dated 05.02.2021 for holding the post of Agricultural Supervisor. As per the petitioners, the qualification and eligibility conditions have been given in Clause 7 of the advertisement which are as under:- पातता एवं शैकणणक योगताः - 1- Hkkjr esa fof/k }kjk LFkkfir fdlh ekU;rk izkIr fo'ofo|ky; ls ch-,l-lh-¼d`f"k½ ;k ch-,l-lh- ¼d`f"k&m|ku½ vkWulZ vFkok fdlh ekU;rk izkIr cksMZ ls 10$2 ;kstuk ds v/khu d`f"k ds lkFk lhfu;j ek/;fed ;k iqjkuh ;kstuk ds v/khu d`f"k ds lkFk mPp ek/;fed vkSj 2- nsoukxjh fyfi esa fy[kh fgUnh esa dk;Z djus dk Kku ,oa jktLFkku dh laLd`fr dk KkuA 3. The petitioners have stated that they have acquired certificate of Secondary School Examination in vocational subjects including Micro Irrigation Tech. (AG), and he is also possessing the Senior Secondary School Examination Certificate with the same subject. As per the petitioners they were eligible, after undergoing the entire process, they were also provisionally selected for being appointed on the aforesaid post subject to examination of their eligibility as well as documentary verification, however, in the final select list/appointment letter, they do not find their names and till date no final order of rejection has been communicated to them. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has categorically stated that Rajasthan Staff Selection Board is an agency to conduct recruitment examination on the instructions of [2025:RJ-JP:17549] (3 of 4) [CW-3856/2022] Administrative Department. They have conducted the examination and after provisionally selecting the petitioner, his name was included in the provisional list. So far as examination of eligibility and document verification is concerned, same is conducted by the Administrative Department and they have got no role to play in such process. 5. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have also filed reply to the writ petition, in which they have mentioned that the qualification prescribed in the advertisement are strictly in consonance with the Rajasthan Agricultural Subordinate Services Rules, 1978. 6. As per the qualification contemplated under the Rules as well as in the advertisement, the petitioners were required to possess Senior Secondary Examination Certificate with agriculture subject. However, the vocational qualification held by the petitioners with Micro Irrigation Tech. (AG) is not equivalent to the qualification which is required under the Rules and conditions of the advertisement. 7. Hence, as the petitioners are not possessing the requisite qualifications therefore, they have not rightly been given appointment and there is no infirmity or illegality in the action of the respondent-Department. 8. Thereupon, the counsel for the petitioners have attempted to demonstrate equivalence with the help of relevant text books through which they have studied for acquiring the vocational qualification, however, it is settled proposition of law that the writ court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot enter into a question of equivalence [2025:RJ-JP:17549] (4 of 4) [CW-3856/2022] rather and such exercise falls within the sole ambit of the respondent-Government. 9. In the instant case, where even the relevant Rules or conditions of advertisement have not been challenged by the petitioners, this Court finds no error in the decision taken by the respondents in not appointing the petitioners. 10. In view of the above, there is no substance or merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioners and the same is hereby rejected. 11. Stay application and all other pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /174