JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner in this writ petition, seeks for a direction to the respondent to publish the result of the test underwent by him with Roll No.15886, which is a selection for the post of Lower Division Clerk and Junior Clerk conducted by the respondent viz., Union Territory of Puducherry. 2. The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.No.32060 of 2012 in respect of the very same selection, seeking for a direction to permit him to write the examination for the said post for which he has made an application. The examination was scheduled to be held on 09.12.2012. This Court while ordering notice to the learned Government Advocate, Puducherry granted interim direction permitting the petitioner to write the examination. Subsequently, the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was permitted to write the examination. But however in the same order, while dismissing the writ petition, the learned Judge observed that the permission given to the petitioner to write the examination will not clothe him with any right and the further process has to be carried out by the respondent on merits and in accordance with law. 3. The petitioner thereafter filed the present writ petition with the relief set out above. When this writ petition came up on 04.01.2013, this Court ordered notice on admission. On notice, the respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 27.02.2013. 4. It is seen from the records that the petitioner has completed his SSLC examination during April 1997 and completed his Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering (EEE) during April 2000. Thereafter, by a lateral entry, he joined B.Tech in Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering and obtained B.Tech degree from Pondicherry University. 5. The respondent vide notification dated 02.12.2011 called for applications from eligible candidates for the post of Lower Division Clerk - 400 vacancies, Store Keeper Grade-III - 115 vacancies, Junior Clerk - 28 vacancies and Typist -24 vacancies. The petitioner in this case is only concerned with the post of Lower Division Clerk and Junior Clerk. 5. The respondent vide notification dated 02.12.2011 called for applications from eligible candidates for the post of Lower Division Clerk - 400 vacancies, Store Keeper Grade-III - 115 vacancies, Junior Clerk - 28 vacancies and Typist -24 vacancies. The petitioner in this case is only concerned with the post of Lower Division Clerk and Junior Clerk. The educational qualification for the said posts is set out in the notification, which reads as follows:- "Code : 01Lower Division Clerk Educational and other qualification: (a) A pass in Hsc., (12th class or equivalent from a recognised Board or University) (b) A pass in Typewriting Lower Grade Examination in English or Tamil or Malayalam or Telugu conducted by Government / Board of Technical Education. Code : 03 Junior Clerk Educational Qualification A pass in Higher Secondary Examination" 6. The petitioner had not undergone the Higher Secondary Course and obviously, he is not entitled to seek his application being considered. In view of the direction granted by this Court, he was allowed to write the common written examination, but the result was withheld depending upon the outcome of the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner. Subsequently, the writ petition was dismissed by observing that the direction granted is subject to the petitioner satisfying the respondent on the merits of his claim. The petitioner had secured 48.25 marks in the said examination. The cut-off marks for MBC in respect of Lower Division Clerk is 45.50 and for Junior Clerk is 47.75. Since the petitioner do not have the educational qualification prescribed under the said notification, he is not eligible to be considered. 7. The respondent in their counter affidavit has stated that the Union Territory has recognised only the following courses as equivalent to 12th Class. i) Pre-Degree Course from University of Calicut, Kerala. ii) Intermediate from Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh. iii) All India Senior School Certificate Examination from Central Board of Secondary Education. 8. Apart from the above, the following Army Qualifications are considered as equivalent to Higher Secondary:- i) Boys Training Establishment (Indian Navy) ii) IAF Education Test (Indian Air Force) iii) IAF Educational Test (for promotion to the rank of Corporal) In the absence of the petitioner not having the requisite qualification, his request for publishing the result may not be legally permissible. 9. In the present case, the notification did not give any equivalent qualification for being considered. 9. In the present case, the notification did not give any equivalent qualification for being considered. On the other hand, the respondent was demanding an exact qualification as prescribed and the petitioner do not have any such right for seeking a direction. 10. The Supreme Court has recognized the distinction between the equivalent and exact qualification vide judgment reported in (2012) 3 SCC 129 [Chandrakala Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan]. In paragraph Nos.8 and 9, it observed as follows: "8. The word ‘equivalent’ must be given a reasonable meaning. By using the expression ‘equivalent’ one means that there are some degrees of flexibility or adjustment which do not lower the stated requirement. There has to be some difference between what is equivalent and what is exact. Apart from that, after a person is provisionally selected, a certain degree of reasonable expectation of the selection being continued also comes into existence. 9. Considering these aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the appellant should be considered reasonably and the provisional appointment which was given to her should not be cancelled. We order accordingly. However, we make it clear that we are passing this order taking in our view the special facts and circumstances of the case." 11. In the present case, the respondent has admitted that the Union Territory do not run any Higher Secondary Course and the students are sent for the examination conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Tamil Nadu. In Paragraph 9 of the counter, it was averred as follows:- "9. The Respondent submits that Diploma course relates to Technical Education and the Certificate has been issued by the State Board of Technical Education and Training, Tamil Nadu. On the other hand, the Higher Secondary Course pertains to general education and the Certificate is being issued by the Board of Higher Secondary Examination, Tamil Nadu. It may be seen there from and also with reference to the curriculum attached to the aforesaid courses that the said Diploma course cannot be taken to be equivalent to the course of Higher Secondary. This is more so because in respect of posts for which the said Diploma Course have been prescribed as the minimum qualification, the candidates in possession of Higher Secondary Course shall not be eligible to compete." 12. This is more so because in respect of posts for which the said Diploma Course have been prescribed as the minimum qualification, the candidates in possession of Higher Secondary Course shall not be eligible to compete." 12. However, it is now brought to the notice of this Court in respect of the Rules framed by the Tamil Nadu Government, when an identical question came up for consideration as to whether the Diploma obtained from Polytechnic course can be considered as equivalent to the Higher Secondary Course for the purpose of public appointment, the Sate Government issued G.O.(Ms).No.242 Higher Education Department, dated 18.12.2012. In the said GO, the State Government observed that the issue was discussed in the Equivalence Committee in its 37th Meeting held on 03.12.2012 and which recommendation was forwarded by TNPSC and accepting the said recommendation, the GO came to be issued. In Resolution No.2, it was stated that candidates who studied 10th standard and thereafter underwent three year Diploma course and subsequently having obtained a degree from Distance Education from University, can be considered as equivalent. 13. In the present case, the petitioner after the completion of Diploma Course has also obtained a degree in Engineering. Therefore, it is a very hard case where the respondent should consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the clarification issued by the Tamil Nadu Government. Hence, a direction is issued to the respondent to consider the petitioner's case in the light of the order issued by the Tamil Nadu Government in G.O.Ms.No.242 Higher Education Department, dated 18.12.2012. Though the order issued by the Tamil Nadu Government may not be binding on the Puducherry Government, but in the present case since Higher Secondary Course is not run by them and the students are sent for examination conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary Examination, Tamilandu and when the Tamil Nadu Government has considered Diploma Course as equivalent to Higher Secondary Course, the decision open to the Union Territory of Puducherry to consider the said issue in the light of the stand taken by the Tamil Nadu Government. The said exercise should be undertaken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said exercise should be undertaken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If ultimately, the respondent takes a decision that Diploma Course is equivalent to Higher Secondary, they can also give appointment to the petitioner as has secured the required cut-off marks in the said examination. 14. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.