JUDGMENT S. PANDA, J. : The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the illegal and arbitrary action of the opposite parties in rejecting his application to take admission into 3rd Semester Diploma Courses (Lateral entry) in spite of qualifying in the Diploma Entrance Test, 2012, Odisha. 2.The petitioner passed Prathama from Lalmohan Kendriya Hindi Vidyalaya, Beguniadiha, Mayurbhanj in the year 2009 in 1st Division. He obtained certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabd. Thereafter, the petitioner took admission in Fitter Trade at Jhadesar Industrial Training Centre, Balasore, completed two years I.T.I. Course and obtained provisional National Trade Certificate issued by the State Council for Technical Educational and Vocational Training, Odisha. After completion of the above course, the petitioner appeared Diploma Entrance Test and got 7640 rank. The Information Brochure reveals that the eligibility qualification to take admission in the said course is +2 Science with PCM/+2 Vocational (2 years Course) pass out students in any Engineering Trades/10th Pass with 2 year I.T.I. Pass Certificate. The said Information Brochure further reveals that at the time of admission, a candidate shall have to report personally with the intimation letter/rank card as per the counselling programme and is also required to produce the original documents, i.e., H.S.C. or equivalent mark sheet and H.S.C. or equivalent provisional certificate along with other original documents. The Principal, Government I.T.I., Balasore refused to accept Prathama certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as the same was not equivalent to H.S.C. certificate and advised the petitioner to participate in the counselling which was to be held at Directorate of Technical Education and Training, Odisha, Cuttack on 1.7.2012. The petitioner attended the said counselling on 1.7.2012 at Cuttack. However, opposite party No.1 refused to accept the certificate of the petitioner so far as Prathama examination is concerned and did not allow him to take admission in 3rd Semester Diploma Course. It was averred that treating Prathama qualification equivalent to 10th pass earlier the petitioner was allowed to take admission in Fitter Trade. He completed the said course and obtained a provisional National Trade Certificate from the State Council for Technical Educational and Vocational Training, Odisha. Therefore, his candidature should not have been rejected by the opposite parties to take admission into 3rd Semester Diploma Courses (Lateral entry) on the ground that Prathama certificate is not equivalent to H.S.C. Certificate. He completed the said course and obtained a provisional National Trade Certificate from the State Council for Technical Educational and Vocational Training, Odisha. Therefore, his candidature should not have been rejected by the opposite parties to take admission into 3rd Semester Diploma Courses (Lateral entry) on the ground that Prathama certificate is not equivalent to H.S.C. Certificate. Hence, the petitioner has sought a direction from this Court to allow him to take admission into the 3rd Semester Diploma Courses (Lateral entry). 3.A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties stating therein that as per the Information Brochure, the eligibility criteria for admission to the aforesaid course is fixed to +2 Science with PCM/+2 Vocational (2 years course) pass out students in any Engineering Trade/10th pass with two years I.T.I. pass certificate. A candidate has to produce the original H.S.C. certificate or equivalent mark sheet or H.S.C. or equivalent provisional certificate. Admittedly, the petitioner has passed I.T.I. (2 years course) in the Fitter Trade from Jhadeswar ITC, Balasore and also obtained rank in the Diploma Entrance Test in general category. The petitioner producing the certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as equivalent to H.S.C. certificate claimed for admission. The Board of Secondary Education, Odisha has published a list of Board’s conducting 10 + Secondary Examinations which are declared equivalent to H.S.C. conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha. In the said list, the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha has not declared the certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as equivalent to H.S.C. certificate issued by the Board. Therefore, the petitioner’s candidature for taking admission into 3rd Semester Diploma Courses (Lateral entry) in the Engineering Technology was rejected since the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification as per the eligibility criteria fixed in the Information Broacher. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has cited a decision of this Court in the Swadhin Kumar Barik v. State of Orissa reported in 2006 (Supp.-I) OLR 1103 and the decision of the apex Court in the case of Rajasthan and others v. Lata Arun reported in (2002) 6 SCC 252 . 4.A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner which reveals that a notification has been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development in the Department of Secondary and Higher Education on 26th July, 2001. 4.A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner which reveals that a notification has been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development in the Department of Secondary and Higher Education on 26th July, 2001. On the recommendation of the high Level Committee for recognition of Educational Qualifications, the Government of India have decided to recognize Prathama Examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabd for the purpose of employment under the Central Government for the post for which the desired qualification is a pass in Matriculation. Subsequently, the aforesaid decision of the Government of India was extended for a further period of 3 years and the said recognition was extended from time to time till 26.10.2010. 5.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Prathama certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was recognized as equivalent to Matriculation by the Central Government. Therefore, the opposite parties should have accepted the same as equivalent to H.S.C. certificate. 6.This Court in the case of Swadhin Kumar Barik (supra) has held that the certificate of Sikshya Visarad issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad cannot be taken cognizance of equivalent to C.T. following an unreported Division Bench decision of this Court in OJC No.1259 of 1995 disposed of on 6.5.1997. In the said unreported decision, a specific challenge was made to the letter issued by the Government asking not to take cognizance of the certificate of Sikshya Visarad issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. This Court was not inclined to interfere with the said decision of the State Government and rejected the application. 7.The apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others (supra) considering the question whether Court can interfere with the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to the course held as follows : “10. The points involved in the case are two fold: one relating to prescription of minimum educational qualification for admission to the course and the other relating to recognition of the Madhyama Certificate issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as equivalent to or higher than +2 or 1st year of TDC for the purpose of admission. Both these points relate to matters in the realm of policy decision to be taken by the State Government or the authority vested with power under any statute. Both these points relate to matters in the realm of policy decision to be taken by the State Government or the authority vested with power under any statute. It is not for Courts to determine whether a particular educational qualification possessed by a candidate should or should not be recognized as equivalent to the prescribed qualification in the case. That is not to say that such matters are not justifiable. In an appropriate case the Court can examine whether the policy decision or the administrative order dealing with the matter is based on a fair, rational and reasonable ground; whether the decision has been taken on consideration of relevant aspects of the matter; whether exercise of the power is obtained with mala fide intention; whether the decision serves the purpose of giving proper training to the candidates admitted or it is based on irrelevant and irrational considerations or intended to benefit an individual or a group of candidates. 11. This Court in Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical Practitioners v. Director of Health, Delhi Admn. Services rejecting the contention that proper consideration had not been given to the standard of education imparted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Praying and expertise acquired by the holders of the degrees awarded by the said institution, made the following observations : “It is not necessary for this Court to consider such submissions because the same remains in the realm of policy decision of other constitutional functionaries. We may also indicate here that what constitutes proper education and requisite expertise for a practitioner in Indian medicine, must be left to the proper authority having requisite knowledge in the subject. As the decision of the Delhi High Court is justified on the face of legal position flowing from the said Central Act of 1970, we do not think that any interference by this Court is called for.” 12. In the case of Ravinder Nath (Dr.) v. State of H.P., this Court considered the question whether a diploma/degree of Vaidya Visharad or Ayurveda Ratna obtained from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, which institution was recognized for the period from 1931 to 1967 only, could be accepted as educational qualification fulfilling the eligibility conditions for promotion to the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari (Vaidya) under the State of Himachal Pradesh. This Court held that the Second Scheme to the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 came into force in the State of Himachal Pradesh on 15.8.1971 which clearly mentioned the period for which diplomas/degrees awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan were recognized. The respondents obtained qualification after this period for which there was no recognition, and they were aware of the fact, which itself disentitled them from claiming promotion. Their contention that the condition regarding degree from a recognized body is prescribed for direct recruitment only in Rule 7 of the 1974 Recruitment Rules while there is no such condition in Rule 11 which governs promotion, was rejected by this Court holding that the Recruitment Rules have to be read consistently with the 1970 Act and the 1968 Act as well as the government notification dated 21.2.1978 which recognizes diplomas/degrees awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan during the period 1931 to 1967 only. This Court declared that the qualifications acquired by the respondents for the HSS, which were admittedly after 1967, did not entitle them to be considered for promotion to the post of Vaidya. 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.” 8.In view of the decision of the apex Court as well as this Court and since the certificate issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is not declared as equivalent qualification to H.S.C. and the prescribed authority has not accepted the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.