1 CGHC010040342017 2026:CGHC:28838 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3567 of 2017 * - Sandeep Kumar Chandrakar S/o Shankar Lal Chandrakar Aged 30 years, R/o Village Jamgaon, Tehsil Amleshwar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 – State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Skill Development, Technical Education and Employment, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattsigarh 2 – Chhattisgarh Public Services Commission, Raipur Through Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 – Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh Through: Vice Chancellor Newai, P.O.- Newai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 – Disha Institute of Management and Technology, Raipur Through: The Principal Satya Vihar, Vidhansabha- Chandrakhuri Marg (Balauda Bazar Road), Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 – All India Council for Technical Education, Through Regional Officers and Assistant Director, Central Regional Office (CRO), Bhopal Airport Bypass Road, Gandhi Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.) 462063 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 2 For Respondent No. 5 : : : Mr. T.L. Bareth, Panel Lawyer Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and to direct the respondent authority to allow the petitioner to join the post of Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.07.15 11:33:08 +0530 2 Training and Placement Officer (Polytechnic Institute) from the date of issuance of the appointment order. 10.3 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. The facts, in brief are that the petitioner acquired degree of Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) from the Pandit Ravishanker Shukla University, Raipur in the year 2008 and thereafter obtained degree of Masters in Business Administration (MBA) with Dual Specialization in Human Resources and Marketing Management in the year 2011 from Disha Institute of Management and Technology, Raipur. The respondent No. 2 issued an Advertisement on 23.12.2015 for various posts including 03 posts of Training and Placement Officer (Polytechnic Institute). The qualification required for said post as per Clause F (iii) was MBA (HR) (Ist Division) from any recognized Institution or equivalent degree. The petitioner applied for post of Training and Placement Officer as he was eligible and qualified for said post. An admit card was issued and he participated in the examination which was conducted on 17.07.2016. The petitioner was called for interview, scheduled on 05.11.2016. During the process of interview, the respondent No. 2 raised objection with regard to Masters Degree of petitioner observing that as per required criteria, the petitioner does not have Degree of MBA (HR). The petitioner was afforded an opportunity to submit his clarification. The respondent No. 4 on 07.11.2016 issued a certificate clarifying the facts that the petitioner has completed MBA Degree with Dual Specialization in Human Resources and Marketing Management in Academic Session 2010-11 with Ist Division. The respondent No. 3 University also issued certificate and clarified that the petitioner has studied special subjects group of Human Resources Management and Marketing Management. 3 After completion of selection process, final select list was published by the respondent No.2 on 08.11.2016. The petitioner submitted all necessary documents and clarifications issued by the University and the Institution before respondent No. 2 on 10.11.2016 and made prayer to consider his candidature. Similar representation was made on 27.03.2017, but his name has not been considered and thus, this petition has been filed. 3. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the required eligibility criteria for the post of Training and Placement Officer (Polytechnic Institute) was MBA (HR) with Ist Division or equivalent Degree. He would refer syllabus given in Advertisement for the post of Training and Placement Officer (Polytechnic Institute) and would submit that the petitioner has studied most of the subjects mentioned in the Advertisement. He would contend that the petitioner studied Marketing Research; Consumer Behaviour and Sales Management; Integrated Marketing Communication; Customer Relationship Management; Industrial Marketing; Services Marketing; Corporate Finance; Security Analysis and Portfolio Management; Taxation and Tax Planning; Insurance and Risk Management; Derivatives and Risk Management ; Human Resources Planning and Development; Management of Training and Development; Compensation Management; HRD Instruments; Leadership and Sustainable Development; SAD and Data Structures; Software Engineering and Project Management; E-Commerce; DBMS, RDBMS & SOL Concepts; Computer Networking; Materials Management; Production Planning and Control; Manufacturing Strategy; Logistics and Supply Chain Management; Quality 4 Management; R & D Management; Technology Acquisition and Diffusion; Technology Evaluation and Negotiation; Technology knowledge and society; Technology System, Environment and Policy; Public Enterprise Management; Energy Management; Tourism & Hotel Management; Planing and Management of Education System and Marketing of Social Services and would submit that the respondent No. 2 should have considered the candidature of the petitioner. He would invite attention of this Court to the Notification issued by the All India Council for Technical Education dated 4th January 2016 and would contend that according to Notification the qualification for the post of Training and Placement Officer, Degree in the Management is desirable qualification and thus, the petitioner is eligible candidate for the said post. It is also contended by learned Senior Counsel that in the Advertisement word “Equivalent” has been used. He would submit that required equivalent degree has not been clarified in the Advertisement and thus, there is an ambiguity. He would contend that in the matter of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others reported in (2015) 17 SCC 709, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that acquiring higher qualification in prescribed subject was sufficient to hold that candidate possess prescribed qualification. It is also held that in case of any ambiguity or vagueness noticed in prescribing qualification in advertisement, same ought to have been clarified by authority in advertisement itself, and in case it was not clarified benefit should go to candidate. He would refer paragraph No. 15 of above judgment. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. 5 5. Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 would submit that the required qualification for the post of Training and Placement Officer was MBA (HR) from recognized University or equivalent degree. He would submit that though the petitioner is MBA, but he is not MBA (HR) and, therefore, his name has not been considered by the Selection Committee. He would contend that according to Recruitment Rules i.e. Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Teaching cadre-Polytechnic) (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 2014, prescribed educational qualification for the post of Training and Placement Officer is MBA (HR) degree with Ist Class or equivalent degree from recognized University. It is also argued that many Universities grant degree of MBA (HR) and therefore, the contention made by learned Senior Counsel that MBA Degree acquired by the petitioner includes HR is misconceived. With regard to syllabus given in the Advertisement, Dr. Agrawal would submit that there is no ambiguity in the Advertisement. The educational qualification was prescribed in the Advertisement strictly in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, 2014. It is contended that as prescribed qualification was MBA (HR), a candidate must have such degree to fulfill that criteria. It is also argued that the issue of equivalence cannot be considered by courts and it is a matter within domain of experts. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Others Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Others reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404 and Unnikrishnan CV & Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 7188 of 2013 dated 28.03.2023. 6 6. Dr. Sudeep Agrawal would further contend that the contention made by the learned Senior Counsel to the effect that the petitioner had studied subjects of Human Resources of Management during course of MBA Degree Program should not be accepted in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Kavinder and Others in Civil Appeal No. 232 of 2020 dated 21.07.2020. He would submit that this petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel appearing of other respective respondents would support the contention made by Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with instant petition. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner passed Masters in Business Administration (MBA) with Dual Specialization in Human Resources and Marketing Management in the year 2011 from Disha Institute of Management and Technology, Raipur. As per the Advertisement issued by the respondent No. 2 for the post of Training and Placement Officer, prescribed educational qualification was MBA (HR) or equivalent Degree. Though the petitioner is MBA Degree holder, but it is not a degree of MBA (HR) and therefore, his name has not been considered for appointment by the respondent No. 2. 10. With regard to issue of ambiguity in the Advertisement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry (supra) held that if there was any ambiguity or vagueness noticed in prescribing qualification in advertisement, it should have been clarified by authority concerned in the advertisement itself. In the said case, the minimum qualification prescribed for applying to the post of Jammu and Kashmir 7 Forest Service Range Officer Grade-I was BSc (Forestry) or equivalent degree, whereas a candidate did his BSc degree with Forestry as one of the major subjects and Masters in Forestry, and therefore his candidature was rejected. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the candidate had Masters degree in Forestry and thus, he had prescribed qualification to apply for said post and his application could not have been rejected. The relevant paragraph No. 15 is reproduced herein below:- “15. In our considered view, firstly, if there was any ambiguity or vagueness noticed in prescribing the qualification in the advertisement, then it should have been clarified by the authority concerned in the advertisement itself. Secondly, if it was not clarified, then benefit should have been given to the candidate rather than to the respondents. Thirdly, even assuming that there was no ambiguity or/and any vagueness yet we find that the appellant was admittedly having BSc degree with Forestry as one of the major subjects in his gradation and further he was also having Master’s degree in Forestry i.e. MSc (Forestry). In the light of these facts, we are of the view that the appellant was possessed of the prescribed qualification to apply for the post in question and his application could not have been rejected treating him to be an ineligible candidate for not possessing prescribed qualification.” 11. In the present case, the facts are distinguishable. It is not a case where the petitioner has any higher qualification MBA (HR), rather his stand is that he completed MBA with HR as one of the major subjects. The contents of Advertisement would make it clear that there was no ambiguity or vagueness and it was issued according to Rules of 2014. 12. With regard to syllabus appended to the Advertisement, the petitioner studied Marketing Research; Consumer Behaviour and Sales Management; Integrated Marketing Communication; Customer 8 Relationship Management; Industrial Marketing; Services Marketing; Corporate Finance; Security Analysis and Portfolio Management; Taxation and Tax Planning; Insurance and Risk Management; Derivatives and Risk Management ; Human Resources Planning and Development; Management of Training and Development; Compensation Management; HRD Instruments; Leadership and Sustainable Development; SAD and Data Structures; Software Engineering and Project Management; E-Commerce; DBMS, RDBMS & SOL Concepts; Computer Networking; Materials Management; Production Planning and Control; Manufacturing Strategy; Logistics and Supply Chain Management; Quality Management; R & D Management; Technology Acquisition and Diffusion; Technology Evaluation and Negotiation; Technology knowledge and society; Technology System, Environment and Policy; Public Enterprise Management; Energy Management; Tourism & Hotel Management; Planing and Management of Education System and Marketing of Social Services. It is very well know that a syllabus for competitive exam is a structured outline of subjects, topics and sub-topics a candidate should read to prepare for specific tests. It defines the exact scope of the exam and prevents a candidate from studying unnecessary topics. He would contend that for the post of Training and Placement Officer a specific syllabus is given in the Advertisement, but it does not mean that the petitioner should have acquired MBA Degree in every topic mentioned in the syllabus. Therefore, this ground is not available to the petitioner. 13. It is well settled principles of law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra) that the equivalence of 9 educational degree is a complex academic and technical matter and courts cannot declare different qualifications of courses equivalent on their own, nor can they mandate that an employer accept degree as equivalent unless recruiting rules explicitly provide for it. The relevant paragraph No. 26 of judgment passed in Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra) is reproduced herein below:- “26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K.5 in the subsequent decision in Anita7. The decision in Jyoti K.K.5 turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in 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, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K.5 turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench1 of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment2 of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision1 of the Division Bench.” In the above referred matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of prescribed qualifications with any other given qualifications. 10 14. In Unnikrishan CV (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme, in paragraph No. 7, held as under:- “7. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Ors. MANU/SC/1422/2018 : (2019) 2 SCC 404, it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither expand the abmit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. In the matter Shifana P.S. Vs. State of Kerala and Others, reported in (2024) 8 SCC 309, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraphs No. 13 to 15 held as under:- “13. This Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sk. Imtiyaz Ahmad3 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, as the recruiting authority, to determine. (emphasis supplied) 14. In Unnikrishnan CV v. Union of India4, a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while relying upon the earlier judgment in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal5 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. 11 15. The fervent plea advanced on behalf of the appellant that the University of Calicut had issued a certificate dated 10-10-2011 verifying that BSc (Polymer Chemistry) course of the said University is recognised as equivalent to its BSc (Chemistry) course is also not tenable in light of the observations made by this Court in Unnikrishnan CV4. In view of the settled principles of law flowing from the above precedents, we are of the firm view that the appellant herein was not qualified for the post advertised vide Notification dated 30-4- 2008.” 16. In the matter of Kavinder (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the employer was best suited to judge whether the degree of a candidate was in an allied subject. Unless such assessment was perverse or contrary to the requirements prescribed and the courts have no reason to interfere. The relevant paragraphs No. 8 and 9 are reproduced herein below:- “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 12 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 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. ” 17. Having considered the facts discussed above and the law laid down Hon’ble Supreme Court in above referred cases, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. 18. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti