Judgment :- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 1] Heard Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Joshi, learned AGP for respondents 1, 2 and 4. No body has appeared for respondent no. 3 though served. 2] Shri Mardikar learned counsel at the out set points out that one of the prayer in the petition is to direct the respondent no. 3 to pay to petitioner his salary from May 1995 till the date of filing of petition and to continue to do so during its pendency. However, he fairly pointed out that respondent no. 3 School is already closed down. It is, therefore, obvious that no such relief can be given in present writ petition against respondent no. 3 atleast at this stage. 3] The other contention of Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for the petitioner is though school is closed down, benefit of provisions of Rule 25(A) of Maharashtra Employees ofPrivate Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules 1981, is not extended to petitioner on the ground that his petition was pending. Petitioner holds qualification of Diploma in Plant Engineering & on the strength of this qualification, he was given employment in respondent no. 3college as Instructor in 1992 and after almost three years the respondent no. 2 refused to grant approval on the ground that he does not possess Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. He has invited our attention to the fact of filing of Writ Petition No. 2992 of 1995 before this Court and its withdrawal on 02.04.1996 as the State Government was then in process of considering the equivalence of said Diploma with Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. He has invited attention to impugned order dated 04.12.1996 passed by State Government to urge that instead of considering equivalence between two diplomas, the suitableness of the candidates holding those diplomas for employment has been looked into and thus there is failure to exercise the jurisdiction. Our attention is invited to a Report submitted by three member Committee on 07.12.1993 in this respect, holding that both these Diplomas are equivalent. Learned counsel states that on 25.04.1990, some courses were recognized as equivalent and on 16.11.1993 petitioner was informed that issue of equivalence of his Diploma with Diploma in Mechanical Engineering was still under consideration. Our attention is invited to a Report submitted by three member Committee on 07.12.1993 in this respect, holding that both these Diplomas are equivalent. Learned counsel states that on 25.04.1990, some courses were recognized as equivalent and on 16.11.1993 petitioner was informed that issue of equivalence of his Diploma with Diploma in Mechanical Engineering was still under consideration. In this background he contends whether two Diplomas were equivalent or not, needed to be decided on the basis of the Report of the Committee dated 07.12.1993 and in the light of the syllabus or course taught therein. Suitability of the candidates passing out to perform a particular work or type of job could not have been a decisive test for said purpose. 4] Learned Assistant Government Pleader on the other hand has relied upon return as filed. She states that the report dated 07.12.1993 is prepared by Committee not constituted statutorily or by State Government and therefore State Government on 26.12.1995, constituted a Committee of 10 experts. Those experts did not find & recommend grant of equivalence on 09.08.1996 and after evaluating material on record, the State Government has issued the communication dated 04.12.1996. She points out that the recommendation dated 09.08.1996 by this Committee of 10 experts has been accepted by the State Government. 5] During arguments learned AGP also sought time to produce before this Court the letter dated 09.08.1996 and also Minutes of discussion of said Expert Committee so as to show to this Court that Committee has looked into all required facets and relevantmaterial and thereafter has made recommendation against the petitioner. 6] Shri Mardikar learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed any adjournment as according to him impugned order dated 04.12.1996 is passed by State Government and reasons given therein are only germane at this stage. 7] The perusal of impugned order dated 04.12.1996 shows that it contains reference to the letter dated 09.08.1996 submitted by Committee of 10 member experts. Said letter is in fact the recommendation of that Committee. Equivalence of Diploma in Plant Engineering has been considered in Clause (C) of that order by State Government. State Government has found that there is major difference between these two courses but the said difference is noted to be “for the appointment on the posts in the Government”. The equivalence has been rejected only on that account. Equivalence of Diploma in Plant Engineering has been considered in Clause (C) of that order by State Government. State Government has found that there is major difference between these two courses but the said difference is noted to be “for the appointment on the posts in the Government”. The equivalence has been rejected only on that account. 8] Vide its report dated 07.12.1993 the Committee of three members has not looked into the purpose for which the expertise or education secured by student undergoing that course was to be utilized. It appears to have compared subjects taught and treatment given to diploma (plant engineering) for future The report dated 09.08.1996 by the Expert Committee appointed by State Government is not before this Court. However, contents of that report are also not relevant at this stage. State Government has looked into only one aspect i.e. the fitness of candidate holding diploma in Plant Engineering for appointment or employment in its other departments. From return as filed & from impugned order, it seems that the Government has found that insofar as such employment is concerned, courses were materially different and plant engineers were not possessing the mechanical knowledge in detail so as to enable them to function in other departments like B&C, Irrigation, MSEB, Water Supply etc. as supervisors except power plants. 9] We, therefore, find substance in the contention of Shri Mardikar that purpose to which knowledge was to be put could not have a decisive factor while ascertaining the equivalence. The question was of comparison between two courses and the same could have been decided only by looking at the curriculum taught and the extent of knowledge imparted during studies in respective course. How 10 Members Experts Committee has held that there is no equivalence & what made them to so opine, is not relevant because the State Government has not accepted or mentioned that point of difference. Its order dated 4.12.1996 records only one reason and it has not come to conclusion that two courses cannot be viewed as equivalent because of any other difference between the two. Because of this position we find that even if learned AGP produces Minutes of said committee or Report of the said Committee before us, the said document cannot save the impugned order. Because of this position we find that even if learned AGP produces Minutes of said committee or Report of the said Committee before us, the said document cannot save the impugned order. The reason given by State Government is very specific and State Government has viewed the controversy only through employment point of view in other departments like B&C, PWD etc. Its order can not be attempted to be justified by pointing out some other material on record which State Government itself has found not necessary to be considered. 10] According to Black's Law Dictionary (9th Ed.) word “equivalent”, when used as an adjective, means equal in value, force, amount, effect or significance. Second meaning given is “corresponding in effect or function, nearly equal, virtually identical”. When it is employed as a noun, it means that which can perform the same function as an other element or substance. In 2009 AIR SCW 2027 " Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra", Hon. Apex Court has noted its explanation as “equal in such properties as affect ourselves or the use which we make of things, such as value”given in Advanced Law Lexicon(3rd Ed.2005) by P. Ramanatha Aiyar. It also finds that Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines it as an adjective as" 1: equal in force or amount.....equal in area or volume but not admitting of superposition (a square to a triangle) 2 a: like in signification or import 3 a: equal in value, compensative. After noticing these meanings, following conclusion reached by Hon. Apex Court are important. It observes that, “The last of the above makes the meaning of the word 'equivalent' very clear by explaining it in contradistinction to the word 'equal'. It says equivalent is equal in such properties as affect the use which we make of things. Seen thus any of the relevant properties, e.g., value, area, volume, quantity, quality etc. may form the basis for determining equivalence.” One can not forget that in present case, the equivalence is required to be found out as two courses are not same. In AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1321 "Basic Education Board, U. P. v. Upendra Rai",Hon. Apex Court has declared that grant of equivalence and/or its revocation is an administrative decision in the sole discretion of the concerned authority, and the Court has nothing to do with such matters. In AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1321 "Basic Education Board, U. P. v. Upendra Rai",Hon. Apex Court has declared that grant of equivalence and/or its revocation is an administrative decision in the sole discretion of the concerned authority, and the Court has nothing to do with such matters. The matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the government, and the Court does not have expertise in such matters. Hence it should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in it. 11] However, when relevant material is lost site of or irrelevant material is relied upon, the decision making process itself gets vitiated. Here, the competency of petitioner to function as plant engineer in power plants is not in dispute. He is found not holding qualification equivalent to diploma in mechanical engineering and hence, he is found unfit to function in any other department. Job requirements for working as an instructor do not appear to form basis of application of mind. From return as filed on record, it appears to be the stand of State Government that unless he obtains more knowledge in the branch of mechanical engineering by prosecuting graduate course, he can not be posted in such other departments. We find the tests applied erroneous. State Government has not found out whether a diploma holder in mechanical engineering can function as plant engineer or then a person like petitioner needs to be given preference for that job or whether he has any special advantage because of his diploma in plant engineering and a diploma holder in mechanical engineering lacks it. State Government has on oath asserted that 3 members of earlier Committee were from academic field & had nothing to do with employment in PWD, Irrigation etc. State, being employer, has claimed right to examine such equivalence. The capacity to function in its employment, thus appears to be a decisive factor used by it. But, here petitioner was appointed as instructor to teach students & question of equivalence has arisen in that backdrop. If in inquiry into equivalence, concentration has to be only on one facet, whether it should be centered around only fitness for employment or it has to be his potential to teach. Has such application of mind all pervasive. Whether opinion of 3 academic experts was totally irrelevant? If in inquiry into equivalence, concentration has to be only on one facet, whether it should be centered around only fitness for employment or it has to be his potential to teach. Has such application of mind all pervasive. Whether opinion of 3 academic experts was totally irrelevant? Presuming that such enquiry can be only in respect of any one particular angle, question is whether ability to teach & learning or knowledge possessed by such diploma holders and bearing of their respective diplomas thereon, ought to have been & needs to be also the part of that investigation by an expert committee in order to find out that equivalence. This aspect of teaching or its relevance, does not figure in impugned order at all. Purpose for which such equivalence is required to be ascertained or object behind that exercise will definitely determine the nature of norms to be employed. State Government nowhere finds petitioner incompetent or not eligible to teach. Filing of Writ Petition No. 2992 of 1995 before this Court by him and its withdrawal on 02.04.1996 as the State Government was then considering the issue ofequivalence is admitted fact. That concentration has to be based upon relevant material & test. We, therefore, find enquiry undertaken by the Sate Government without reference to context & not in right perspective. This error in impugned exercise can not be supplemented by producing any records not considered by the State. The said order or communication therefore, suffers from non-application of mind & is unsustainable. 12] We, therefore, quash and set aside the order dated 04.12.1996. We direct the respondent no.1 to consider the issue of equivalence independently, and without any regard to the purpose for which the knowledge imparted during that course is to be put. The appropriateness of grant of such equivalence with employment or its use is entirely a different issue and can not be the sole deciding factor. State Government may, in a given case, say that a candidate with particular qualification is not fit for a particular job. However, that cannot be a reason to hold in all cases, the courses are not equivalent. 13] Hence, we direct respondent no.1 to consider the issue of equivalence again afresh as early as possible and in any case within a period of four months from today. However, that cannot be a reason to hold in all cases, the courses are not equivalent. 13] Hence, we direct respondent no.1 to consider the issue of equivalence again afresh as early as possible and in any case within a period of four months from today. Needless to mention that if the qualification of petitioner is found equivalent to Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, he will then be free to raise claim for absorption under Rule 25(A) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 along with claim for salary in accordance with law. 14] Rule is made absolute accordingly. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Certified copy be expedited.