JUDGMENT 1. A process of selection was initiated by Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology, Shalimar Campus, Srinagar (herein after referred to as the University), vide Advertisement Notice No.04 of 2015 dated 13.05.2015 for the post of Female Nurse on regular temporary basis through direct recruitment. The eligibility condition prescribed was 10+2 (Science Group) with Diploma in Nursing & 03 years experience in Nursing from Government Hospital/recognized Nursing Home. The petitioner does not possess the Diploma in Nursing but possesses Diploma as Female Multipurpose Health Worker. 2. It appears that a certificate dated 16 th of January, 2019, was obtained by the petitioner, purportedly, issued by the Principal, Government Medical College, Srinagar, conveying therein that FMPHW Diploma was equivalent to Diploma in Nursing. This certificate was annexed as an annexure to writ petition bearing WP(C) No.2425/2019 in the earlier round of litigation. However, the Principal, Government Medical College, Srinagar, vide communication dated 23 rd August, 2019, contradicted the claim of the petitioner and denied having issued any such certificate. On the contrary, a stand was taken that the said certificate cannot be considered as equivalent, inasmuch as FMPHW course is of one and half years (18 months) duration while as Nursing course is of three and half years duration with 10+2 with Science as requisite minimum educational qualification. 3. It appears that pursuant to the direction issued by the Court on 9 th of April, 2019, passed in SWP No.1940/2015, the case of the petitioner was considered vide order impugned dated 29.10.2019. The petitioner was found ineligible on the touchstone of the eligibility conditions prescribed in the Advertisement Notice. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner does not possess Diploma in Nursing but possesses Diploma in FMPHW course. Neither the Advertisement Notice nor the rules governing the appointment to the post of Female Nurse envisage determining equivalence of the prescribed eligibility condition. It would be, thus, unnecessary for this Court to go into the question as to whether the Diploma possessed by the petitioner is at all equivalent to the Diploma in Nursing, as was a requirement prescribed in the Advertisement Notice. 5. In Tariq Islam vs. Aligarh Muslim University and Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 546 , the Apex Court, while placing reliance upon the judgment in University of Mysore vs. C. D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 , in paragraph 7 held as under: '7. 5. In Tariq Islam vs. Aligarh Muslim University and Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 546 , the Apex Court, while placing reliance upon the judgment in University of Mysore vs. C. D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 , in paragraph 7 held as under: '7. In the University of Mysore & Anr. vs. C. D. Govinda Rao & Anr, the appointment of one Anniah Gowda was set aside by the High Court on the basis that he did not satisfy the qualification that he must possess either a first or a high second class Masters degree of an Indian University. This Court stated that normally, it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally are. Area of interference by courts would be limited to whether the appointment made by the academic body had contravened any statutory or binding rule and while doing so, the Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts and on whose recommendations the academic body had acted and not to treat such expert body as a quasi- judicial tribunal, deciding disputes referred to it for decision. Equivalence of a qualification pertains purely to an academic matter and courts would naturally hesitate to express a definite opinion, particularly, when it appears that the experts were satisfied that the equivalence has already been considered and declared by it. This view has been reiterated by this Court in several decisions on the question of equivalence of qualifications including the one in Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University & Anr.' 6. Keeping in view the ratio of the aforementioned judgment, this Court would not venture to determine as to whether the Diploma possessed by the petitioner in FMPHW course was equivalent to the Diploma in Nursing. 7. Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, overwhelmingly prayed that the petitioner on account of her experience could be adjusted, may be on temporary basis, against a vacant post of Nurse, which was available in the University. This prayer, however, cannot be allowed for the simple reason that any post, which is required to be filled up even on temporary basis must be filled up after considering all eligible candidates, if they fulfil the requisite eligibility conditions as prescribed in rules. This prayer, however, cannot be allowed for the simple reason that any post, which is required to be filled up even on temporary basis must be filled up after considering all eligible candidates, if they fulfil the requisite eligibility conditions as prescribed in rules. Any direction, as is being prayed by learned counsel for temporary adjustment of the petitioner, would be a direction violative of Article 14 of the Constitution vis--vis those candidates who may be possessing the requisite qualification but would be ousted on account of adjustment of the petitioner in such a capacity. 8. Having considered the matter in its entirety, in my opinion, the order of consideration dated 29.10.2019 calls for no interference. The same is legally valid. The petition is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected CMs.