JUDGMENT : V.G. ARUN, J. 1. The Kerala Public Service Commission (for short “the PSC”) has filed this original petition, aggrieved by the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2480 of 2014, whereby the Tribunal declared the first respondent/applicant to be having the notified qualification for the post of Lecturer in Computer Application and Business Management (Government Polytechnics), in the Technical Education Department. 2. The PSC had, as per Annexure A5 in Ext.P1, invited applications to the post of Lecturer in Computer Application and Business Management in the Polytechnics under the Technical Education Department. The qualifications prescribed in the notification are as follows:- “M.B.A. with Computer Application as an optional paper with not less than 60% marks in aggregate from a University recognised by any University in Kerala after undergoing a regular course of study. OR MCA Degree with not less than 60% marks in aggregate from a recognised University after undergoing a regular course of study and Post Graduate diploma in Business Management from a Government recognised institution. OR B.Tech Degree with not less than 60% marks in Computer Science with a Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management from a Government recognised Institution after undergoing a regular course of study.” 3. The first respondent, who is having the qualification of MBA in Tourism and Bachelors Degree in Computer Application (BCA), applied under the notification, participated in the written test successfully and submitted his certificates for verification. After verification of the first respondent's certificates, Annexure-10 communication was issued rejecting the first respondent's candidature for the reason that he did not have the notified qualification. On representation being submitted by the first respondent, the PSC reiterated its stand as per Annexure-A12. Thereupon the first respondent approached the KAT by filing O.A. No. 519 of 2014 contending that the MBA with BCA qualification of the applicant, is a higher qualification when compared to the notified qualification of MBA with one optional paper in Computer Application. It was contended that the BCA Degree of the applicant presupposes the acquisition of one optional paper in Computer Application for the MBA Course. The Tribunal, relying on Rule 10 (a) (ii) of the KS & SSR and a decision in Jyothi K.K. and Others vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others, (2010) 15 SCC 596 held that the applicant is qualified in terms of Annexure A5 notification. The Tribunal, relying on Rule 10 (a) (ii) of the KS & SSR and a decision in Jyothi K.K. and Others vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others, (2010) 15 SCC 596 held that the applicant is qualified in terms of Annexure A5 notification. Accordingly, Annexures 10 and 12 were quashed and the matter was remitted to the PSC for fresh consideration on the claim of the applicant for inclusion in the rank list to the post notified under Annexure A5. It was clarified that the applicant shall be treated as qualified, if the PSC finds the MBA qualification acquired by him to be valid and acceptable. 4. The PSC reconsidered the matter as directed and again rejected the first respondent's application vide Annexure-A15, holding that the qualification of MBA (Tourism) is not equivalent to the qualification notified under Annexure A5. It was also stated that going by Rule 10(a) (ii) of KS & SSR, BCA cannot be treated as an alternate qualification for 'MBA with Computer Application as an optional subject', because a subject that is treated as an integral part of the qualification cannot be substituted, even with a higher qualification. 5. The first respondent challenged Annexure-A15 in O.A. No. 2480 of 2014 and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the original application finding that the view taken by the PSC is contrary to the findings of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 519 of 2014. The finding of the PSC that the qualification of MBA (Tourism) is not equivalent to the qualification notified under Annexure A5 was held to be wrong. The Tribunal held that the qualification prescribed being a Post Graduate Degree in Business Management irrespective of the specialisation, if the MBA Degree is obtained after undergoing a regular course of study and recognised by one of the Universities in Kerala, it must be accepted as the notified qualification. Based on its findings, the Tribunal declared the applicant to be having the required qualifications and directed the PSC to allow the applicant to participate in the selection process and include him in the rank list, if he is otherwise eligible for the same. 6. Based on its findings, the Tribunal declared the applicant to be having the required qualifications and directed the PSC to allow the applicant to participate in the selection process and include him in the rank list, if he is otherwise eligible for the same. 6. The findings of the Tribunal and the consequential directions are challenged by the PSC on the ground that as the notification mandates the possession of MBA Degree with Computer Application as an optional subject, the first respondent cannot be held to be possessing the prescribed notified qualification, since the first respondent's specialisation and optional subject for MBA was Tourism. The order of the Tribunal is challenged also on the ground that the BCA qualification acquired by the first respondent cannot be treated as a higher qualification since the prescription in the notification is specialisation of Computer Application for MBA, which relates to Business Management and has nothing in common with BCA, which is only an academic qualification. Yet another ground of challenge is that the prescription and adequacy of qualification, the requirement of possessing a particular qualification etc. are within the exclusive domain of the rule making authority and that the Tribunal had no authority or jurisdiction to equate one qualification with another and to hold that a particular qualification is sufficient for a post. 7. The first respondent, on the other hand, relies heavily on Annexure-A14 order, which according to the first respondent, covers the issue, the same being a judgment inter parties which has attained finality. It is contended that the Tribunal's finding on the first respondent's qualification are well founded and does not warrant interference in exercise of the power of judicial review. 8. We take note of the fact that, even though in Annexure-A14 order the Tribunal had dealt with the issue regarding the first respondent's qualification and had held the applicant to be qualified in terms of Annexure A5 notification, ultimately the matter was remitted to the PSC for fresh consideration. The PSC was given liberty to consider whether the MBA qualification acquired by the applicant is valid and acceptable. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the PSC was denuded of its power to consider as to whether the first respondent had the requisite notified qualification. The PSC was given liberty to consider whether the MBA qualification acquired by the applicant is valid and acceptable. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the PSC was denuded of its power to consider as to whether the first respondent had the requisite notified qualification. Hence, the legality of Annexure-A15 order of the PSC has to be considered and decided on merits, rather than dismissing the original petition for the sole reason that Annexure A14 order has become final. 9. An analysis of Annexure 5 notification would show that the notified qualification is MBA with Computer Application as an optional paper with not less than 60% marks in aggregate from a University recognised by any University in Kerala after undergoing a regular course of study. Admittedly, the first respondent has passed MBA with 60% marks, undergoing regular course of study and the Pondichery University, from where the first respondent acquired his MBA Degree, is a recognised University. Therefore, the issue boils down to the question as to whether MBA (Tourism) with BCA, is sufficient or higher qualification than the notified qualification of MBA with Computer Application as an optional paper. In the original application, the first respondent has admitted that even though Computer Application was one of the optional subjects in the second semester of his MBA Course, he had opted to study the subject E-Commerce and Web Marketing for Tourism, which is also a Computer related subject. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the PSC, MBA without any specialisation and MBA (Tourism) are not the same. 10. The learned counsel for the PSC contended that the MBA (Tourism) Course, as revealed from Annexure-A6 Syllabus, is completely focused upon the managerial, economic and other aspects of Tourism, whereas an MBA without specialisation would be more about general principles of business management and other related aspects. The requisite qualification for a particular post having been prescribed by the rules, only those persons having the specified qualification are entitled to be considered for appointment. It is not the duty of the Tribunal or the Court to assume the role of an expert and to hold a qualification to be equivalent to another. 11. The requisite qualification for a particular post having been prescribed by the rules, only those persons having the specified qualification are entitled to be considered for appointment. It is not the duty of the Tribunal or the Court to assume the role of an expert and to hold a qualification to be equivalent to another. 11. The other question which arise for consideration is as to whether the qualification of BCA acquired by the first respondent is a higher qualification than the notified qualification of MBA with Computer Application as an optional paper. For holding BCA to be a higher qualification, the Tribunal has placed reliance on Rule 10 (a) (ii) of the KS & SSR and the decision in Jyothi's case. It would be apposite to extract Rules 10 (a) (i) and (ii) and 13 of the KS & SSR, for the purpose of answering the issue:- “10. Qualifications - (a) (i) - The educational or other qualifications, if any, required for a post shall be as specified in the Special Rules applicable to the service in which that post is included or as specified in the executive orders of Government in cases where Special Rules have not been issued for the post/service. (ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognised by executive orders or standing orders of Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post, in the Special Rules or found acceptable by the Commission as per rule 13(b)(i) of the said rules in cases where acceptance of equivalent qualifications is provided for in the rules and such of those qualifications which pre- suppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post, shall also be sufficient for the post. 13. Special Qualifications - No person shall be eligible for appointment to any service, class, category or grade or any post borne on the cadre thereof unless he:- (a) possesses such special qualifications and has passed such special tests as may be prescribed in that behalf in the Special Rules. (b) possesses such other qualifications as may be considered to be equivalent to the said special qualifications or special tests:- (i) by the Commission in cases where appointment has to be made in constitution with it. (b) possesses such other qualifications as may be considered to be equivalent to the said special qualifications or special tests:- (i) by the Commission in cases where appointment has to be made in constitution with it. (ii) by the State Government or by the Appointing Authority with the approval of the State Government, in other cases: Provided that in the case of the Ministerial Staff of the different Departments/Offices in the Kerala Judicial Ministerial Subordinate Service and in the Kerala Ministerial Subordinate Service the unified tests as prescribed in G.O. (P) 22/63/PD. dated the 14th January 1963, as subsequently amended or clarified shall be applicable, until the Special Rules for the Kerala Judicial Ministerial Subordinate Service or the Kerala Ministerial Subordinate Service as the case may be come into force.” A reading of the above provision shows that normally the educational or other qualification required for a post shall be as specified in the Special Rules applicable or as specified by Executive Orders of the Government, in cases where Special Rules have not been issued. Rule 10(a) (ii) is an exemption and provides for consideration of equivalent qualification under the following circumstances: (a) where such qualification is recognised as equivalent qualification through executive orders or standing orders of the Government. (b) where such qualification is found acceptable by the Commission as per Rule 13(b)(i) of the KS & SSR. (c) where acceptance of equivalent qualifications is provided for in the Special Rules. (d) possession of qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post. 12. In Jyothi's case, the qualification prescribed for the notified post of Sub-engineers (Electrical) in the KSEB was:- “1. SSLC or its equivalent. 2. Technical qualifications:- (a) Diploma in Electrical Engineering of a recognised institution after 3 years' course of study. (b) a certificate in Electrical Engineering from any one of the recognised technical schools shown below with five ears' service under the Kerala State Electricity Board. [Not fully extracted as not relevant] (c) MGTE/KGTE in electrical light and power (higher) with five years' experience as IInd Grade Overseer (Electrical) under the Board.” The PSC rejected the application of candidates who had B.Tech Degree in Electrical Engineering or Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering on the premise that those candidates did not possess the necessary qualification. [Not fully extracted as not relevant] (c) MGTE/KGTE in electrical light and power (higher) with five years' experience as IInd Grade Overseer (Electrical) under the Board.” The PSC rejected the application of candidates who had B.Tech Degree in Electrical Engineering or Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering on the premise that those candidates did not possess the necessary qualification. The rejection was challenged by contending that the candidates possessed higher qualification and persons possessing higher qualification had been considered and appointed by the KSEB on earlier occasions in terms of Rule 13 of the KS & SSR. The Apex Court found that under the relevant rules, Degree in Electrical Engineering or other equivalent qualification, recognised or equivalent thereto, has been prescribed for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer. That the post of Assistant Engineer being superior to that of Sub-Engineer, for which the qualification of Degree in Electrical Engineering was prescribed, the obvious indication was that such qualification is definitely higher qualification than what is prescribed for the lower post of Sub-Engineer. In that view of the matter, the Apex Court held that the qualification of Degree in Electrical Engineering presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification of Diploma in that subject. It is therefore evident that what weighed with the Apex Court in Jyothi's case was the fact that the qualification which the rejected candidates possessed was prescribed as the qualification for the higher post of Assistant Engineer, which presupposes such qualification to be a higher qualification than the notified qualification of Diploma in Electrical Engineering. The following paragraph from Jyothi's case is relevant in this context:- “7. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant Rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The following paragraph from Jyothi's case is relevant in this context:- “7. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant Rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The High Court is also justified in stating that the higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for that post in order to attract that part of the Rule to the effect that such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post.” The above observation of the Apex Court makes it abundantly clear that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant rules, the same cannot in any manner be whittled down and a different qualification adopted. It is also made clear that the acceptance of higher qualification would depend upon the fact that such qualification clearly indicates or presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for that post. 13. As regards the jurisdiction of the courts to deliberate and decide upon the question of equivalency of qualification, the Honourable Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others, Civil Appeal No. 11853 of 2018, has underlined the unbridled power of the State to prescribe the qualifications and the minimal scope for judicial review over such prescription. The contextually relevant portion of the judgment in Zahoor Ahmad’s case is extracted below:- “The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the state, as the recruiting authority, to determine. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the state, as the recruiting authority, to determine. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The state is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision making. The state as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily.” 14. The PSC having notified the qualification of MBA with Computer Application as an optional paper as the prescribed qualification, it was not for the Tribunal to have held that MBA with BCA is equivalent or higher than the notified qualification. As held by the Apex Court, whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State to determine. In the instant case, Rule 10 (a) (ii) of KS & SSR would not be of aid, since, the Government has not recognised MBA with BCA as an equivalent qualification through an executive order, the Kerala Technical Education Service Special Rules do not contain any provision for acceptance of equivalent qualification, nor is such qualification found acceptable by the PSC. Acceptance of equivalent qualification is not provided in the Special Rules and possession of BCA qualification do not presuppose the acquisition of qualification of MBA with Computer Application as an optional paper, since such qualification is not a lower qualification and on the other hand, is an entirely different qualification. In the instant case, the Tribunal has undertaken the exercise of clubbing together two different qualifications for the purpose of equating the qualification of the first respondent with the notified qualification, which is impermissible. 15. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow the original petition. Consequently, O.A. No. 2480 of 2014 will stand dismissed.