ORDER : 1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief:- “10.1. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the arbitrary and illegal action of the Respondents in disqualifying the petitioner from the post of Clinical Psychologist & for the post of Counsellor Psychiatry pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2025 dated 22.04.2025. 10.2. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to reconsider the candidature of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with the eligibility criteria prescribed in Advertisement No.02/2025 without applying any unwritten or extraneous consideration. 10.3. Issue a further writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to appear in the interview for the post of Clinical Psychologist & counsellor Psychiatry, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. 10.4. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, directing the Respondent authorities to keep 01 (one) seat each for the post of Clinical Psychologist and Counselor Psychiatry vacant/reserved during the pendency of the present petition, to ensure the Petitioner’s right to appointment is not frustrated by the completion of recruitment process. 10.5. Pass any other writ, order/direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in interest of justice.” 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition, in brief, are that pursuant to advertisement dated 22.4.2025, Annexure P-1, issued by respondent No.2 inviting applications for appointment on various posts including of Clinical Psychologist and Counselor Psychiatry. In pursuance of aforesaid advertisement, petitioner online submitted application form being qualified for the posts of Clinical Psychologist and Counselor Psychiatry. Communication dated 9.10.2025 was issued calling upon petitioner to produce all relevant documents for verification on scheduled date and pursuant thereto, petitioner appeared before respondent concerned and produced all original documents including educational testimonials. After verification of documents, list of shortlisted candidates was published on 31.12.2025, but petitioner was not shortlisted for interview, which led to filing of this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has done his Masters in Psychology with specialization papers in Clinical Psychology, from a recognized University and as such, he is having requisite qualification of post-graduation in clinical psychology, therefore, petitioner cannot be debarred from participating in the process of selection for appointment on the post of Clinical Psychologist and Counselor Psychiatry. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has done his Masters in Psychology with specialization papers in Clinical Psychology, from a recognized University and as such, he is having requisite qualification of post-graduation in clinical psychology, therefore, petitioner cannot be debarred from participating in the process of selection for appointment on the post of Clinical Psychologist and Counselor Psychiatry. 4. He submits that the universities in the State of Chhattisgarh do not offer a post-graduate course or degree in the stream ‘M.A. Clinical Psychology’ and they uniformly award post- graduate degree in Psychology under the nomenclature ‘M.A. (Psychology). He further submits that various District Health Societies within the State including AIIMS are recognizing master’s degree in Psychology as an essential qualification for the post of Counselor. Hence, declaring the petitioner, who is having Post Graduate Degree in Psychology, with specialization papers in Clinical Psychology, ineligible is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. He next contended that without affording opportunity of hearing, candidature of petitioner has been rejected and therefore the action rejecting his candidature is in utter violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the same is bad in law and liable to be interdicted. He lastly submits that one post of Clinical Psychologist of Scheduled Caste category, to which petitioner belongs, is still lying vacant, therefore, respondents be directed to consider the candidature of petitioner for the said post. He placed reliance on the decisions in SLP No. 18907/2025 (Laxmikant Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others) 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and 3 vehemently opposes submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that qualifications have to be taken as exactly as specified in advertisement. Essential educational qualification for appointment on the posts of Clinical Psychologist and Counselor (Psychiatry), is clearly prescribed in the advertisement as “Post Graduate degree in Clinical Psychology or any other equivalent qualification recognized by the National Medical Commission”. After issuance of advertisement, several candidates submitted their application form before respondent No.2 for consideration of their candidatures for appointment to the post of Clinical Psychologist and Counselor (Psychiatry) annexing post- graduation degree in M.A. (Clinical Psychology). Accordingly the application of the candidates possessing master’s degree in Clinical Psychology were entertained and they were called in the interview. After issuance of advertisement, several candidates submitted their application form before respondent No.2 for consideration of their candidatures for appointment to the post of Clinical Psychologist and Counselor (Psychiatry) annexing post- graduation degree in M.A. (Clinical Psychology). Accordingly the application of the candidates possessing master’s degree in Clinical Psychology were entertained and they were called in the interview. Petitioner, who was having master’s degree in Psychology and not in Clinical Psychology has not been considered and his application was rejected. He submits that petitioner is unnecessarily harping upon equivalence. He has not produced any documentary evidence to show that master’s degree in MA (Psychology) is recognized by the University of petitioner or National Medical Commission as equivalent to master’s degree in Clinical Psychology. Merely because the petitioner had studied the subject of ‘clinical psychology’, as an optional subject, in final year while prosecuting Master’s course in Psychology subject, no inference can be drawn that he possesses essential qualification as prescribed in the advertisement. Drawing of equivalence of educational qualification is purely a technical academic matter and it has to be done by appropriate authority / expert body that too by specific order duly published prior to initiation of recruitment process. He further submits that since petitioner has post graduation in plain psychology in place of Clinical Psychology, therefore, he was not at all eligible for appointment to the post of Clinical Psychologist and Counselor (Psychiatry), for which essential qualification was M.A. (Clinical Psychology). 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 8. Respondent No.3 issued an advertisement for filling up 12 posts of Clinical Psychologist and 02 posts of Counselor Psychiatry. The criteria for eligibility in advertisement indicates that the candidate had to hold master’s degree in clinical psychology or any other equivalent qualification recognized by the National Medial Science Commission. 9. Admittedly, petitioner has done master’s in M.A. (Psychology) and during the course of M.A. (Psychology), in 3 rd and 4 th semester, he had studied subject ‘Clinical Psychology’. In such a situation, petitioner is required to establish and place on record material to satisfy that post-graduation degree in M.A. (Psychology) is equivalent to M.A. (Clinical Psychology). 10. Scheme of examination and syllabus of M.A. (Psychology) and MA (Clinical Psychology) is available in record of writ petition. In such a situation, petitioner is required to establish and place on record material to satisfy that post-graduation degree in M.A. (Psychology) is equivalent to M.A. (Clinical Psychology). 10. Scheme of examination and syllabus of M.A. (Psychology) and MA (Clinical Psychology) is available in record of writ petition. From perusal of scheme of examination and syllabus of both the courses, it appears that although the subject ‘Clinical Psychology’ is being taught to the students of MA (Psychology) in the final year as an optional subject, but MA (Psychology) and MA (Clinical Psychology) are two separate degrees; the syllabus and subjects in both streams are entirely different and as such no equivalence can be drawn between the two much less when no document in this regard is placed. National Medical Commission is not arrayed as party to the petition. 11. The advertisement in question clearly stipulates that candidates applying for the post of Clinical Psychologist and Counselor (Psychiatry), must have master’s degree in M.A. (Clinical Psychology) or any other equivalent degree recognized from the National Commission of Medical Sciences. Nowhere in the advertisement it is mentioned that the candidate having master’s degree in M.A. (Psychology) with ‘Clinical Psychology’ as an option subject shall be considered. Apart from producing syllabus of both the courses, petitioner has not placed any material indicating that M.A. (Psychology) done by him to be equivalent to M.A. (Clinical Psychology). Studying subject ‘clinical psychology’ as an optional subject would not lead to conclusion that petitioner possesses a post-graduate degree in the discipline which has been specially prescribed in the advertisement. 12. It has already been held in a catena of decisions that qualification for a post is a recruitment policy and the State being employer, is only competent authority to prescribe a particular qualification as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of a Judicial review to expand upon the ambit of prescribed qualification. In case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Lata Arun , (2002) 6 SCC 252 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus: “13. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. vs. Lata Arun , (2002) 6 SCC 252 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus: “13. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority.” 13. In case of Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput v Gulbarga University Represented by its Registrar and others , (2014) 3 SCC 767 , while considering meaning of ‘relevant subject’ in regard to eligibility criteria for recruitment on a post, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus: “21. As is evident from the advertisement, applications were invited for filling up various posts in different subjects including the post of Lecturer in MCA. The advertisement requires post-graduate degree in the ‘relevant subject’. The relevant subject would, therefore, in the context of appointment to the post of Lecturer, mean post-graduate degree in MCA. In our opinion, for appointment to the post of Lecturer, Masters’ degree in the Mathematics is not the relevant subject. The advertisement requires Masters’ degree in ‘relevant subject’ and not ‘appropriate subject’. In the present case, the Board of appointment has not stated that post-graduate degree in Mathematics is the relevant subject for MCA but in sum and substance it is equivalent to a post-graduate degree in MCA for the reason that Mathematics is one of the subjects taught in MCA. This, in our opinion, was beyond the power of the Board of appointment. 22. It shall not make any difference even if Mathematics is taught in the Masters’ of Computer Application course. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, gravely erred in upholding the contention of Ganpat and the University that ‘relevant subject’ would mean ‘such of those subjects as are offered in the MCA course’. If Mathematics is taught in a post-graduate course in Commerce, a Masters’ degree in Commerce would not be relevant for appointment in Mathematics or for that matter in MCA. If Mathematics is taught in a post-graduate course in Commerce, a Masters’ degree in Commerce would not be relevant for appointment in Mathematics or for that matter in MCA. There may be a situation in which Masters’ degree in MCA is differently christened and such a degree may be considered relevant but it would be too much to say that a candidate having post- graduate degree in any of the subjects taught in MCA would make the holders of a Masters’ degree in those subjects as holder of Masters’ degree in Computer Application and, therefore, eligible for appointment.” 14. In case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors . (2019) 2 SCC 404 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has 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 ambit 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. 15. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Kavinder and others , (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. 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 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." 16. 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." 16. In case of Union of India vs Uzair Imra , 2023 SCC Online SC 1308, it was observed thus:- “Normally it is not the function of the court to determine equivalence of two qualifications and/or to scrutinize a particular certificate and say, on the basis of its appreciation thereof, that the holder thereof satisfies the eligibility criteria and thus, is qualified for appointment….” It is only when evidence of sterling quality is produced before the court which, without much argument or deep scrutiny, tilts the balance in favour of one party that the court could decide either way based on acceptance of such evidence..” 17. As discussed above, it is evident from the advertisement that applications were invited for filling up various posts in different subjects including the post of Clinical Psychologist and Counselor Psychiatry. The advertisement requires post- graduate degree in the 'relevant subject' for appointment to the post of Clinical Psychologist and Counselor Psychiatry. Relevant subject would, therefore, in the context of appointment to said posts, mean postgraduate degree in Clinical Psychology. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, for appointment to the post of Clinical Psychologist and Counselor Psychiatry, Master’s degree in Psychology is not relevant subject. In the present case, petitioner has not produced any document to the effect that post-graduate degree in Psychology is relevant subject for Clinical Psychologist but for stating that it is equivalent to a post- graduate degree in Clinical Psychology, for the reason that Clinical Psychology is one of the subjects taught in MA (Psychology). 18. At this juncture, it becomes important to clarify that M.A. in psychology and M.A. in Clinical Psychology are not transposable qualifications. A general M.A. in Psychology primarily imparts theoretical and broad-based knowledge of psychological principles, including cognitive, social, developmental, and educational psychology. In contrast, an M.A. in Clinical Psychology is a specialized and practice- oriented programme, with focused training in psychopathology, clinical assessment, diagnosis, therapeutic techniques, and supervised clinical exposure. A general M.A. in Psychology primarily imparts theoretical and broad-based knowledge of psychological principles, including cognitive, social, developmental, and educational psychology. In contrast, an M.A. in Clinical Psychology is a specialized and practice- oriented programme, with focused training in psychopathology, clinical assessment, diagnosis, therapeutic techniques, and supervised clinical exposure. The latter is designed to equip candidates for clinical practice and patient- facing roles, often subject to regulatory standards and professional competence requirements. Therefore, while both degrees fall under the genesis of psychology, however, their academic rigour, professional orientation, and functional outcomes are materially different. Treating a general M.A. in Psychology as equivalent to an M.A. in Clinical Psychology would amount to diluting the essential eligibility criteria as prescribed in the advertisement , which only the employer or rule-making authority is entitled to prescribe. Equivalence cannot be presumed merely on nomenclature or overlapping subjects; it must be grounded in substantial parity of curriculum, training, and intended professional competence. Any contrary approach would defeat the very purpose of prescribing specialised qualifications and would run contrary to settled principles governing recruitment and equivalence determination. 19. So far as submission of learned counsel for petitioner that various District Health Societies within the State including AIIMS are recognizing master’s degree in Psychology as an essential qualification for the post of Counselor Psychiatry, is concerned, nothing prevented the petitioner from questioning the advertisement issued by the respondents or to raise his little finger against eligibility criteria prescribed in advertisement before applying for the posts in question. However, petitioner has not challenged eligibility criteria / educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement for the post of Clinical Psychologist or Counselor Psychiatry and participated in recruitment process on the basis of advertisement. The qualifications prescribed in the advertisement being known to the petitioner, he should have initially challenged the same. Therefore, after having taken a chance and failed, petitioner cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge his disqualification for not having requisite educational qualification when fully aware of educational qualification prescribed in the advertisement for the concerned posts. 20. In case of Punjab National Bank vs. Anil Kumar Da s, (2020) SCC OnLine SC 897 , it was observed thus:- “16…..At this stage, it is required to be noted that originally writ petitioner never challenged the eligibility criteria/ educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement. 20. In case of Punjab National Bank vs. Anil Kumar Da s, (2020) SCC OnLine SC 897 , it was observed thus:- “16…..At this stage, it is required to be noted that originally writ petitioner never challenged the eligibility criteria/ educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement. He participated in the recruitment process on the basis of the advertisement, without challenging the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement. Therefore, once having participated in the recruitment process as per the advertisement, thereafter it is not open for him to contend that acquisition of higher qualification cannot be a disqualification and that too when he never challenged the eligibility criteria/ educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement.” 21. In support of his claim that M.A. (Psychology) is equivalent educational qualification for the post of Clinical Psychologist, petitioner has referred to definition of ‘Clinical Psychologist’ given in the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. True it is that as per Section 2 (g) of this Act of 2017, ‘clinical psychologist’ means a person having a post-graduate degree in Psychology or Clinical Psychology or applied Psychology. However, it is well settled law that fixation of qualification for appointment on a particular post is the prerogative of appointing authority/employer, who has to make appointment to the post. In case at hand, the employer has taken a decision that only post-graduate degree in Clinical Psychology or any other equivalent qualification recognized from National Medical Science Commission would be accepted as educational qualification for the post of Clinical Psychologist or Counselor Psychiatry. Admittedly, at the time of submission of application form petitioner was not having post graduation degree in M.A. (Clinical Psychology) nor he has produced any document showing that degree possessed by him is recognized as equivalent to MA (Clinical Psychology) by the National Medical Science Commission. In absence thereof, the petitioner’s candidature has been rightly rejected as he did not have eligible qualification for the posts in question. 22. So far as decision relied in case of Laxmikant Sharma (supra), which is relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner, is concerned, the same being distinguishable on facts is of no help to petitioner. In that case, appellant was not seeking equivalence, rather claiming that he fulfills the qualification as prescribed in the advertisement on the ground minimum academic qualification prescribed in the advertisement is not being offered by any government university in the State. In that case, appellant was not seeking equivalence, rather claiming that he fulfills the qualification as prescribed in the advertisement on the ground minimum academic qualification prescribed in the advertisement is not being offered by any government university in the State. In case at hand, the universities in the State are offering a post-graduate course titled “M.A. (Clinical Psychology)” and the petitioner is claiming equivalence of educational qualification. 23. As a fallout and consequence of aforesaid discussions, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in action of respondents in holding petitioner ineligible for the concerned posts. 24. For the foregoing discussions, the writ petition being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.