JUDGMENT : 1. After a detailed hearing having been given both to the counsel for the petitioners, the State of Bihar as well as the Bihar Public Service Commission, the core issue, which has been urged before the Court, is whether the so-called diploma/degree, which these petitioners have acquired from Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana, is equivalent to the degree or qualification awarded by the Institution of Engineers (India). 2. Annexure-9 is the extract of Bihar P.W.D. Code. The relevant provision with regard to appointments is Rule 6, which is reproduced herein-below: “6. A candidate shall.- (a) be of an age to be notified by the Government. (b) be of good character. (c) be of sound health, good physique and active habits and free from organic defects or bodily infirmity, and (d) (i) hold a degree in Civil Engineering from an Indian University or a diploma in Civil Engineering from an Indian Engineering College, or (ii) be an Associate member of the Institution of Engineers; India or have passed Sections ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the Associate membership Examination of the Institution of Engineers (India) or possesses any other educational qualifications recognized by the Institution of Engineers (India) as being equivalent to a pass in Sections ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the Associate membership Examination, or (iii) hold a University degree or a diploma from a Civil Engineering College of the United Kingdom or be an Associate Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers.” 3. The contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that so far as the present petitioners are concerned, there is overbearing material to ensure that they have equivalent qualification as Sections ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the Associate membership Examination of the Institution of Civil Engineers (India). There are various communications, which supports such a proposition and if there is a provision for equivalence in the P.W.D. Code itself, then there is obligation upon the State to accept the candidature of these petitioners for promotion. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General No.4 takes a stand that it is not for the Courts to declare or decide whether a degree or qualification in any manner is required to be declared to be equivalent or good enough for such appointment/promotion in terms of the advertisement. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General No.4 takes a stand that it is not for the Courts to declare or decide whether a degree or qualification in any manner is required to be declared to be equivalent or good enough for such appointment/promotion in terms of the advertisement. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Lata Arun, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 252 . Since emphasis is on paragraph 13, the same is reproduced herein-below : “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.” (Emphasis mine) 5. If that be so, then this Court will not venture to declare or to make a proclamation that the diploma/degree of these petitioners, obtained from Institution of Civil Engineers (India), should be treated as equivalent to the diploma/degree awarded by the Institution of Engineers (India). 6. Since the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly laid down the law that leeway has to be given to an employer, therefore, the Court will not venture to do what the petitioners want. 7. The Court, however, is willing to permit the State Government to decide as a matter of policy whether they are willing to grant the same status to these petitioners with regard to the diploma/degree which they had obtained from the Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana. 8. A decision in this regard should be taken preferably within a period of eight weeks keeping in mind even the materials which have been brought on record through the writ application as well as the fact that this Court vide its order dated 03.10.2016 has observed that if any promotion is granted, it will be subject to the outcome of this writ application. 9. The Court, in the interest of justice, would also like to observe that it will be advisable to have a decision of the State on this issue before the respondents proceed with the exercise of grant of promotion, since it will have implications for these petitioners. 10. 9. The Court, in the interest of justice, would also like to observe that it will be advisable to have a decision of the State on this issue before the respondents proceed with the exercise of grant of promotion, since it will have implications for these petitioners. 10. The writ application stands disposed of in terms of the above directions.