JUDGMENT : N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nirav Mishra for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta for the respondent - State and learned advocate Mr. D.G. Shukla for respondent No. 2 - Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board. 2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by the three petitioners wanting this Court to hold and declare that the petitioners are eligible and entitled to the post of Laboratory Technician, as they have been possessing degree in Medical Technology and M.Sc. in Microbiology and that the degrees were liable to be declared as equivalent. A direction is sought against the respondents to include name of the petitioners in the select list to the post in question. 2.1. In other words, petitioners seek eligibility to the post of Laboratory Technician by obtaining declaration that the degree of B.Sc. in Medical Technology possessed by them was liable to be considered as equivalent to B.Sc. Chemistry or Microbiology or Bio-chemistry. 3. Aspiring to be appointed to the post of Laboratory Technician, all the three petitioners applied on-line pursuant to Advertisement No. 11/2016-17 issued by respondent No. 2 - Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board. It is the case of the petitioners that their names appeared in the merit list. They were called for verification of the documents, thereafter however appointment letters have not been issued which made them to file the present petition. The petitioners stated that they completed their Bachelor of Science, that is B.Sc. in the subject of Medical Technology. The petitioners have been further possessing the degree of M.Sc. in Microbiology. 3.1. The recruitment to the post is governed by the Rules called Laboratory Technician, Class-III Recruitment Rules, 2013 read with Laboratory Technician, Class-III Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2016. The petitioners stated that they completed their Bachelor of Science, that is B.Sc. in the subject of Medical Technology. The petitioners have been further possessing the degree of M.Sc. in Microbiology. 3.1. The recruitment to the post is governed by the Rules called Laboratory Technician, Class-III Recruitment Rules, 2013 read with Laboratory Technician, Class-III Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2016. The eligibility requirement is contemplated stating that a candidate shall possess (a) possess a Bachelor's degree in Chemistry or Microbiology or Bio-chemistry obtained from any of the Universities established or incorporated by or under the Central or a State Act in India, or any other educational institution recognized as such or declared to be deemed as a University under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956; (b) have passed the Diploma in Laboratory Technician or Medical Laboratory Technician or Medical Laboratory Technology or P.G. Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology or one year Medical Laboratory Technician Training Course or Laboratory Technician Training Course obtained from any of the Government Recognized institutes or Universities established or incorporated by or under the Central or a State Act in India or any other educational institutions recognized as such or declared to be deemed as a University under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. 3.2. The advertisement contemplated educational qualification to be eligible to the post as under which was published under the Rules. 3.2. The advertisement contemplated educational qualification to be eligible to the post as under which was published under the Rules. "A Candidate shall, (i) Possess a Bachelor's degree in chemistry or Microbiology or Bio-chemistry obtained from any of the Universities established or incorporated by or under the central or a State Act in India, or any other educational institution recognized as such or declared to be deemed as a University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956; (ii) Have passed the Diploma in Laboratory Technician or Medical Laboratory Technician or Medical Laboratory Technology or P.G. Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology or one year Medical Laboratory Technician Training Course or Laboratory Technician Training Course obtained from any of the Government Recognized institutes or Universities established or incorporated by or under the Central or a State Act in India or any other educational institutions recognized as such or declared to be deemed as a University under section 3 of the University Grant Commission Act, 1956; (iii) Possess the basic knowledge of computer application as prescribed in the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 and (iv) Possess Adequate knowledge of Gujarati or Hindi or both." 3.3. The petition was contested by filing affidavit-in-reply by respondent No. 2 - Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board in which it was inter alia highlighted that when the on-line applications were made by the petitioners it was stated by them in their applications that they possessed Bachelor Degree in Microbiology as basic educational qualification. It was submitted that on that basis the petitioners were allowed to appear in the written test held on 29th January, 2017, which was a provisional permission in view of the on-line applications. The merit-list was declared on 09th February, 2017. The candidates who were included in the list, were personally called for verification of certificates and other details. During the document verification, it was noticed by the authorities that none of the petitioners possessed the basic educational qualification of Bachelor Degree of Chemistry or Microbiology or Bio-chemistry. All the petitioners had their B.Sc. qualification in Medical Technology. Therefore, the candidature of the petitioners came to be rejected and their names were not included in the final select list published on 14th March, 3017 by the respondent - Board. 4. All the petitioners had their B.Sc. qualification in Medical Technology. Therefore, the candidature of the petitioners came to be rejected and their names were not included in the final select list published on 14th March, 3017 by the respondent - Board. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that when the petitioners did not receive the appointment letter, upon inquiry, they were orally informed that since they did not possess B.Sc. in Chemistry or Microbiology or Bio-chemistry, they could not be considered eligible. It was submitted that the decision on part of the respondents in treating the petitioners ineligible on the aforesaid count was illegal and arbitrary. It was submitted that there was a similarity of syllabus in the B.Sc. Medical Technology with the subjects mentioned in the advertisement. It was submitted that the authorities themselves were not clear and they had been changing the criteria of selection every year. 4.1. It was submitted that in any case, the petitioners had studied Microbiology at the post graduation level, therefore they stood on a better footing than those who had studied Microbiology subjects at the bachelor's degree level and that they deemed to have been acquired the knowledge of Microbiology and were liable to be treated as eligible. Learned advocate for the petitioner by relying on decision of the Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2010) 15 SCC 596 submitted that any candidate possessing qualification higher than the prescribed qualification, higher qualification must clearly indicate ore presupposes acquisition of lower qualification. It was held in the said decision that relevant rule should not be whittled down and different qualification cannot be adopted. In that case however, there was a statutory provision which provided that such of those higher qualification which presupposes acquisition of lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. Such is not the situation in the present case. The question is whether the petitioner candidate holds the basic degree of Bachelor of Microbiology. 4.2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader could submit that though the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification in B.Sc. Degree, they mentioned that they possessed such requirement and that had they stated correct details in the on-line application form, they would not have been even called for written test. It was submitted that when the factual aspect was noticed that the petitioners were possessing B.Sc. Degree, they mentioned that they possessed such requirement and that had they stated correct details in the on-line application form, they would not have been even called for written test. It was submitted that when the factual aspect was noticed that the petitioners were possessing B.Sc. in Medical Technology and not in Chemistry or Bio-chemistry or Microbiology, they were not eligible to be considered. 4.3. Learned advocate for respondent No. 2 - Gujarat Public Service Commission highlighted the aspect that the petitioners submitted wrong information while sending the on-line application. He invited attention to the material in that regard to further submit that had the petitioners supplied correct information in their application form, they would have been treated ineligible even for being called for the test. Learned advocate for respondent No. 2 pressed into service decision of this Court in Gujarat Public Service Commission v. Dr. D.S. Maru [ 2012 (3) GLR 1925 ] in which Rule 3(b) of Gujarat Educational Services Class-II (Administrative Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1969 contemplated requisite qualification for appointment to be Bachelor Degree in Arts, Science, Commerce, Agriculture or Law from statutory Indian or foreign university. The petitioner hold the degree of Bachelor in Rural Science which was not prescribed in the Rule. The Division Bench held that the petitioner was not eligible and further observed that the directions issued by learned Single Judge to treat the degree as equivalent were not justified. In the said Rule, phrase "or equivalent degree" was not incorporated. The Court therefore also held that the legislature never intended to confer a right on the person holding the degree equivalent to the degrees mentioned in the said sub-rule. 4.4. On behalf of the respondents it was next submitted that earlier Special Civil Application No. 11647 of 2015 with allied matters were filed before this Court in the context of Advertisement No. 6/2013-14 whereunder the very post of Laboratory Technician was sought to be filled in by Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board. In that matter, this Court had issued directions pursuant to which the State Government constituted at Committee of experts comprising of Dean, B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad, Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology, B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad and Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology, GMERS Medical College, Sola, Ahmedabad. The committee opined that B.Sc. Medical Technology or M.Sc. In that matter, this Court had issued directions pursuant to which the State Government constituted at Committee of experts comprising of Dean, B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad, Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology, B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad and Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology, GMERS Medical College, Sola, Ahmedabad. The committee opined that B.Sc. Medical Technology or M.Sc. Medical Technology was not a basic educational qualification and under the Rules, the requisite qualification was B.Sc. Microbiology or Chemistry or Bio-chemistry. It was therefore submitted that the petitioners, on the basis of their degree of Bachelor of Medical Technology, could not claim eligibility and that the said qualification was not liable to be treated as equivalent. 5. It is a well settled proposition of law that the Court would not go into the question of equivalence of a degree or qualification. In Basic Education Board, UP v. Upendra Rai, 2008 (3) SCC 432 , the facts inter alia were that the Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) was earlier treated as equivalent to Basic Teacher's Certificate (B.T.C.) but later came to be derecognized. The case of the respondents was that they fulfilled the requisite qualification by virtue of D.Ed. Certificate. They had challenged the derecognition of D.Ed. and wanted the said qualification to be treated as equivalent to the Basic Teacher's Certificate. Refusing to give any relief, the Supreme Court held that the decision not to regard the D.Ed. Certificate as equivalent to B.T.C. Was a policy decision of the Uttar Pradesh Government and the Court would not interfere in such decision. It was laid down that grant or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision. Such decision stands under the sole discretion of the authority concerned. The Court has nothing to do with such matters. It was further stated that issue of equivalence is decided by the experts and the court does not have expertise in such kind of matters. 5.1. The principle was reiterated in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal (2009) 1 SCC 60] wherein it was observed that the equivalence is a technical and academic matter which cannot be implied or assumed. It was further observed that any decision of the academic body or university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution duly published. It was further observed that any decision of the academic body or university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution duly published. If an authority or university did not wish to treat a particular course, in that case, the correspondence course and distant education course, as being the same, it was a matter of policy wherein the courts would not interfere. The policy relating to the aspect of equivalence was an academic matter, it was stated. 5.2. The submission that the State Government had treated the qualification held by the petitioners to be equivalent, does not carry the case of the petitioners any further since it is for each body or university to fix the norms of eligibility and decide on the question of equivalence. In Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University and another, [ AIR 1986 SC 1448 ], the law on the question of equivalence was succinctly stated in the following words, "It is for each University to decide the question of equivalence and it would not be right for the Court to sit in judgment over the decision of the University because it is not a matter on which the Court possesses any expertise. The University is best fitted to decide whether any examination held by a University outside the State is equivalent to an examination held within the State having regard to the courses, the syllabus, the quality of teaching or instruction and the standard of examination. It is an academic question in which the court should not disturb the decision taken by the University." (para 7) 5.3. In Shivangi Sanatkumar Pota v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 4698 of 2018 decided as per judgment dated 30th April, 2019, the question was whether the Degree of M.A. (Sociology) possessed by the petitioner was equivalent to the requirement of Masters Degree in Social Work or Labour Welfare prescribed for the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Class-I. This Court considered the law on the question emanating from different decisions of the Apex Court to observe and hold thus, "6. The question of equivalence is to be addressed and is to be decided in respect of each post independently, as every post would have its own nature of duties attached to it and would have carried the functional specialities. The question of equivalence is to be addressed and is to be decided in respect of each post independently, as every post would have its own nature of duties attached to it and would have carried the functional specialities. A particular qualification may be the good qualification for one post, but it may not be so for another post. The question of equivalence is a customized question to be decided accordingly qua each case. Also that because the Public Service Commission in one State treats the degree as equivalent, is also no ground to contend that the Service Commission in other State should follow the same. It is ordinarily for each authority to decide the question whether a qualification or degree is to be applied as equivalent." 5.4. It was further observed and held in Shivangi Sanatkumar Pota (supra), "6.1 The principles regarding determination of equivalent degree and noninterference in the decisions of such nature by the Courts, are true for the field of education as well as in the arena of service laws. The determination of equivalent qualification either for educational admission or in respect of service post is always an academic exercise to be undertaken by the experts in the field. It is a domain of the employer to decide whether a particular degree is relevant to the post in question and whether a particular degree could be considered as equivalent to the requirement prescribed. Deciding whether a degree or qualification could be a substitute for another degree as qualification, is not the function of the Court. Nor the Court has the academic acumen in this realm. In treating a qualification or degree not equivalent to one prescribed, a host of factors become relevant. The academic body or the expert employer, as the case may be, could be said to be the best judge." 6. It is not for the court to consider and decide whether a particular degree or course or qualification is equivalent to the other. It is a matter of policy in the realm of education, academic or service jurisprudence. A judicial restraint should be exercised by not interfering with such decisions. In the present case, the question was even examined by the expert committee as noted above. The Court is not to sit in appeal. The declaration of equivalence could not be granted by the Court. 7. A judicial restraint should be exercised by not interfering with such decisions. In the present case, the question was even examined by the expert committee as noted above. The Court is not to sit in appeal. The declaration of equivalence could not be granted by the Court. 7. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, no relief could be granted to the petitioners. Petition is meritless and stands dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.