JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the appellant in person, Sri Abhinav N. Trivedi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission, respondents no. 2 and 3. 2. This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been preferred to assail the correctness of the order dated 27.2.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 22726 (S/S) of 2016 (Yashoda Nand vs. State of U.P. and others). 3. The relevant facts essential for disposal of this appeal are as follows. The U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) issued an advertisement on 18.5.2016 inviting applications for selection to the post of Village Panchayat Adhikari. The last date for submission of the application was 25.7.2015. One of the essential qualifications was a certificate from DOEACC (Department of Electronics & Accreditation of Computer Courses) in 'CCC' (Course on Computer Concepts) and such certificate was to be necessarily attached while submitting the application form. The petitioner admittedly did not possess the certificate of 'CCC' from DOEACC on or before 25.7.2015 so could not attach the same. According to the petitioner he had applied for the admission to 'CCC' Course under DOEACC on 2.7.2015 thereafter his examination for 'CCC' was held on 5.9.2015 in which he was declared pass and he was issued the certificate accordingly. As the petitioner was not called for interview he filed writ petition on 28.8.2016 praying for writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to consider his candidature and to allow him to appear in the interview scheduled from 1.9.2016. During the pendency of this petition, certain developments took place and accordingly the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit on 19.12.2016. 4. Along with the supplementary affidavit copy of order being passed in a bunch of petitions relating to the same examination conducted by the Commission for selection of Gram Panchayat Adhikari by the Allahabad High Court has been enclosed in which the question as to whether a qualification in computer other than 'CCC Certificate' from DOEACC, even though being equivalent, superior or higher could or could not be considered as a substitute qualification in place of 'CCC Certificate' from DOEACC. Learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 16.7.2016 in Writ-A No. 30313 of 2016 (Abha Tripathi and others vs. State of U.P. & others) reported in 2016 (9) ADJ 739 held that equivalent qualification in computers could be substituted for 'CCC Certificate' from DOEACC. Reliance was placed by the learned Single Judge on a Government Order in which the State Government had relaxed the condition of 'CCC Certificate' from DOEACC and accepted equivalent / higher qualification in computers as a subject to be equivalent. Whatever be the reason the fact remains that the judgment in the case of Abha Tripathi (supra) provided for certain other qualifications in computers being equivalent to 'CCC Certificate' from DOEACC to be treated as equivalent and accordingly allowed the writ petitions. In pursuance of the judgment of Abha Tripathi, the Commission issued a notice dated 19.10.2016 in which details were given of other qualifications in computers to be treated as equivalent and accordingly invited the applicants who have not been invited for interview merely because they did not possess DOEACC certificate to submit additional documents relating to their qualifications in computers by 26.10.2016 till 5.00 P.M. and further notified that the interview of such candidates whose documents were found to be in order would be held on 29.10.2016. The petitioner claims to have submitted his documents on 24.10.2016 before the Commission. The petitioner submitted his application on 24.10.2016 on the ground that he had studied computers as a subject in his B.Tech. First Year Course in which computer concepts and programming was one of the papers in the course and had successfully completed his first Year in the year 2009-10. All these documents have been annexed with the supplementary affidavit and are on record. 5. On 29.10.2016 a notice was also put up by the Commission which included the names of those candidates who had submitted their additional documents with regard to their qualifications in computers pursuant to the notice dated 19.10.2016 but their additional documents were not found to be equivalent and accordingly they were to be excluded from the interview scheduled for 29.10.2016. The petitioner alleges to be present at the time of interview on 29.10.2016 but he was not interviewed and he was informed that he did not possess the requisite qualifications. The said list has already been attached with the supplementary affidavit as Annexure no. S.A.-3. The petitioner alleges to be present at the time of interview on 29.10.2016 but he was not interviewed and he was informed that he did not possess the requisite qualifications. The said list has already been attached with the supplementary affidavit as Annexure no. S.A.-3. According to the appellant his name did not find place in the said list of candidates who had been excluded. Para 11 of the supplementary affidavit refers to this list and para 39 of the counter affidavit filed by the Commission does not dispute this fact also. 6. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the judgment in Abha Tripathi (supra) did not help the petitioner as he had only completed one year studies and had not completed the full degree course and secondly the 'CCC Certificate' had been obtained by the petitioner much after the last date of submission of the application form. It is against the above judgment and order that the appellant is before us. 7. The submission advanced by the appellant is to the effect that a 'CCC Certificate' is a basic course in computer knowledge and is termed as 'Course in Computer Concept'. It is also submitted that this course conducted by the DOEACC requires 80 hours of studying divided into 50 hours of theory and 25 hours practical and 5 hours of tutorials. The submission is that it is a very elementary course in computer knowledge. Even the computer subject in High School and Intermediate has been treated to be equivalent qualification to the 'CCC Certificate' from DOEACC. It is also submitted that petitioner having studied computer concept and programming in his first year B.Tech. Course and having cleared it successfully, he should be treated to have acquired higher qualification and as such the Commission wrongly did not entertain him for the interview and the learned Single Judge also erred in dismissing the writ petition. The appellant has also submitted that he has scored very high marks in the written test and if allowed to participate in the interview, there is every likelihood that he would be selected as the last candidate selected had scored lessor marks than what the appellant has been awarded in the written examination. 8. The appellant has also submitted that he has scored very high marks in the written test and if allowed to participate in the interview, there is every likelihood that he would be selected as the last candidate selected had scored lessor marks than what the appellant has been awarded in the written examination. 8. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel representing the respondent-Commission submitted that the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition and even this appeal also does not have any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Firstly, he submitted that the petitioner did not possess the 'CCC Certificate' on the last date of submission of the form and, therefore, was not eligible, next submission that the B.Tech. study of one year by the appellant does not lead him to award of any degree or diploma, therefore, also mere study of a subject in an unfinished course will not entail any benefit to the appellant, thirdly it is submitted that in so far as the list notified on 29.10.2016 is concerned may be it was on account of over-sight and even otherwise the appellant having not obtained any equivalent qualification as held in the case of Abha Tripathi (supra) and as notified in the notice dated 19.10.2016 could not, in any case, have been interviewed on the basis of his first year mark-sheet of B.Tech. 9. Sri Mehrotra further submitted that the Commission does not determines the qualification. It is the State Government which determines the qualification and accordingly the Commission proceeds to make selections. The notice dated 19.10.2016 was in pursuance of the judgment in the case of Abha Tripathi (supra) and the case of the appellant is not covered by the said judgment and for all the above reasons the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the petition and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have considered the submissions and are of the view that whatever be the course study of 'CCC Certificate' from DOEACC, if basic knowledge of computer is required, and whether a pass mark-sheet of Ist year course of an unfinished course can be treated to be a higher qualification, only in such circumstances the appellant can be extended any benefit. It is for the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj, U.P. Government i.e. the appointing authority which can examine this aspect of the matter. It is for the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj, U.P. Government i.e. the appointing authority which can examine this aspect of the matter. We are not making any observations or comments as to whether or not the appellant's B.Tech. Ist year mark-sheet would be of any help or not but leave it to the wisdom of the appointing authority. 11. We accordingly, dispose of this appeal with a direction to the Appointing Authority, respondent no. 1, Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. In case the appellant files a detailed representation annexing all such materials he may deem fit along with certified copy of this order the Appointing Authority may decide the same in accordance to law, within a period of two months from the date of submission of such representation.