JUDGMENT : Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. 1. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 3.7.2019 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant assailing the legality of the order dated 11.4.2018 rejecting her candidature for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Botany). 2. The facts in brief are that the respondent no.3, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for brevity-'the RPSC') vide advertisement dated 12.1.2015 invited applications for appointment on the post of Lecturers in various subjects including the Botany in College, Education Department, Rajasthan under Rajasthan Education Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986. The minimum qualification for the aforesaid post inter alia provided for Masters' degree in relevant subject. The petitioner applied seeking appointment as Lecturer (Botany); but, her candidature was rejected by the RPSC vide order dated 11.4.2018 as she did not possess the Masters' degree in the relevant subject. She assailed rejection of her candidature by way of a writ petition stating therein that she has Masters' degree in Microbiology which is part of Botany subject and hence, she was eligible for appointment as Lecturer (Botany). The writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that the Microbiology and Botany are two distinct subjects and the issue of equivalence of two different degrees is within the domain of the expert academic body in which Court cannot interfere. 3. Assailing the order dated 3.7.2019, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that Microbiology is part of Botany subject and is being taught by the Teachers having post graduation degree in Botany. Learned senior counsel submitted that Botany was one of the additional subjects in her undergraduate (B.Sc.) degree and she has done Doctorate of Philosophy in the Botany subject from the University of Rajasthan. Drawing attention of the court towards advertisement dated 12.12.2017 issued by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission, the learned senior counsel contended that, therein, it was prescribed that Microbiology is an allied subject of the subject Botany. He submitted that the University Grants Commission vide notification dated 18.7.2018 provided for Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges wherein a candidate having a Masters degree in a concerned/relevant/allied subject is eligible for appointment as Assistant Professor. He submitted that the University Grants Commission vide notification dated 18.7.2018 provided for Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of Teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges wherein a candidate having a Masters degree in a concerned/relevant/allied subject is eligible for appointment as Assistant Professor. Learned senior counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that an expert body of the State Government in its meeting dated 9.10.2016, while considering the question of equivalence of degree/syllabus to assess eligibility for appointment on the post of School Lecturer, recommended the degree in Microbiology to be relevant to Biology faculty for appointment. 4. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the eligibility criteria as prescribed by the RPSC requires Masters degree in the relevant subject and since the Microbiology is a relevant subject to the subject Botany, the appellant had requisite eligibility. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the writ petition be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-RPSC submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed no error in dismissing the writ petition as appellant did not possess the requisite post graduation degree in Botany, the minimum eligibility criteria for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Botany). He submitted that in the writ petition bearing no.6573/2015 involving identical controversy, in pursuance of direction of the Hon'ble High Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, an expert body was constituted which, in its meeting dated 12.4.2017, after scrutinising the syllabus of post graduate course of the respective subjects, arrived at conclusion that similarity in between the PG courses of Microbiology and Botany was to the extent of 15-20% only and a candidate having post graduation degree in Microbiology did not have eligibility for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Botany) in College Education. He further submitted that the entire recruitment process in pursuance of the advertisement dated 12.1.2015 stands concluded. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the special appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The applicant has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking additional documents on record. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The documents annexed with the application as Annexure-A1 to A3 are taken on record. 8. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The applicant has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking additional documents on record. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The documents annexed with the application as Annexure-A1 to A3 are taken on record. 8. Indisputably, the requisite eligibility criteria for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Botany), as per advertisement dated 12.1.2015, was post graduation in the 'relevant subject'. Contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the 'relevant subject' for appointment as Lecturer (Botany) has to be taken having relevancy with the subject Botany, is wholly misplaced. Since, clause 4.4.1 of the advertisement laid down minimum educational qualification for appointment as Lecturer in the various faculties, such as faculties of Arts, Humanity, Sciences, Social Sciences, Commerce, Education, Language, Law, Journalism and Mass Communication, the requisite degree has to correspond to the relevant faculty for which advertisement was issued. For Lecturer (Botany), the candidate was required to have post graduation degree in subject Botany. It is trite law that equivalence of an educational qualification with another is within the exclusive domain of expert academic body and the courts should refrain from venturing into this prohibited area not having the requisite expertise. The expert body has, in its meeting dated 12.4.2017 (Annexure-R/1), after examining the respective syllabus of the post graduation courses of Microbiology and Botany subjects, opined that the post graduation degree in Microbiology was not equivalent to post graduation degree in Botany. In these circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to hold the appellant, possessing post graduation degree in Microbiology, eligible for consideration and appointment on the post of Lecturer (Botany). Contention of the learned senior counsel to treat Microbiology to be part of the Botany being an allied subject on the strength of advertisement issued by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and the Regulations provided by the UGC does not merit acceptance as it is not for this Court to read into or to include a qualification which is not provided by the employer. 9. There is another important aspect of the matter. 9. There is another important aspect of the matter. If the post graduation in Microbiology is treated to be equivalent or integral part of the post graduation degree in Botany for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Lecturer (Botany), it would amount to denial of opportunity to such candidates who possess the same qualification but did not apply as it was not so notified. The Hon'ble Apex Court has, in the case of Zonal Manager, Bank of India & Ors. vs. Aarya K. Babu & Anr., (2019) 8 SCC 587 , held as under : "8. The qualification prescribed for the post of Agricultural Field Officer (Scale-1) as issued under the Notification dated 17.11.2014 which is the subject matter herein, is as hereunder: "4. year Degree (graduation) in Agriculture/ Horticulture/ Animal Husbandry / Veterinary Science / Dairy Science / Agri Engineering / Fishery Science / Pisciculture / Agri Marketing & Cooperation / Co-operation & Banking / Agro- Forestry." (emphasis supplied) 9. The private respondents herein had applied in response to the said notification, on 24.11.2014 and despite the private respondent in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.16567/2016 had admittedly possessed the qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry) had indicated the qualification as Agro-Forestry in the application. Be that as it may, the process of selection was undertaken and appointment letter was issued to the private respondents in the two appeals, on 17.09.2015 and 29.05.2015 respectively. In the letter of appointment, it was specifically mentioned that the appointment is subject to producing the original documents which included the proof regarding qualification. Needless to mention that the proof regarding qualification refers to the qualification as depicted in the notification dated 17.11.2014. However, since it was subsequently noticed that she did not possess the degree in B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry), she was issued a show-cause notice dated 03.11.2015 and she was terminated through the order dated 10.12.2015. A similar course was adopted in so far as the other private respondent as well. However, since it was subsequently noticed that she did not possess the degree in B.Sc. (Agro-Forestry), she was issued a show-cause notice dated 03.11.2015 and she was terminated through the order dated 10.12.2015. A similar course was adopted in so far as the other private respondent as well. It is no doubt true that on 18.11.2015 an Office Memorandum was issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Co-operation and Farmers Welfare (Policy Division), whereby on taking note that no 4 year Bachelor Program in Agro-Forestry is available in the country and since Agro-Forestry is covered comprehensively as a subject in the ICAR approved syllabus for B.Sc.(Forestry), it was suggested that it will be appropriate that B.Sc. (Forestry) graduation be considered for the position of Agricultural Field Officer in Banks. Accordingly, a corrigendum dated 16.01.2016 was issued by IBPS. It is not in dispute that based on such decision taken, for the recruitment made subsequently, B.Sc. (Forestry) was included as the qualification for recruitment of Agricultural Field Officer (Scale-I). 10. The issue however is, when the said qualification was not depicted in the relevant recruitment Notification which is the subject-matter and in that circumstance if recruitment has been wrongly made of the persons who did not possess the qualification which was notified but had still applied and the appointment made on that basis is sustained, would it not be to the disadvantage of other persons who had possessed the same qualification of B.Sc. (Forestry) degree but had not applied since the Notification did not depict the said qualification but had indicated some other qualification. In that regard, at the outset it is necessary to take note that the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Kishor Deoramji Gahane-2016 SCC OnLine Bom 15946 relied upon by the appellants herein before the High Court in fact had addressed this issue wherein it was held that the corrigendum issued subsequent to the advertisement would not be beneficial, since the petitioner therein did not possess the qualification notified in recruitment Notification. 12. Though we have taken note of the said contention we are unable to accept the same. 12. Though we have taken note of the said contention we are unable to accept the same. We are of such opinion in view of the well-established position that it is not for the Court to read into or assume and thereby include certain qualifications which have not been included in the Notification by the employer. Further the rules as referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents is pointed out to be a rule for promotion of officers. That apart, even if the qualification prescribed in the advertisement was contrary to the qualification provided under the recruitment rules, it would have been open for the candidate concerned to challenge the Notification alleging denial of opportunity. On the other hand, having taken note of the specific qualification prescribed in the Notification it would not be open for a candidate to assume that the qualification possessed by such candidate is equivalent and thereby seek consideration for appointment nor will it even be open for the employer to change the requirements midstream during the ongoing selection process or accept any qualification other than the one notified since it would amount to denial of opportunity to those who possess the qualification but had not applied as it was not notified. 13. In fact, this view is fortified by the decision of this Court in Mohd. Sohrab Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim University, (2009) 4 SCC 555 relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the said decision it is held as hereunder (SCC P.561, Paras 24-27: "24. According to us, the Selection Committee as also the University changed the rule in the midstream which was not permissible. The University can always have a person as a Lecturer in a particular discipline that it desires to have, but the same must be specifically stated in the advertisement itself, so that there is no confusion and all persons who could be intending candidates, should know as to what is the subject which the person is required to teach and what essential qualification the person must possess to be suitable for making application for filling up the said post. 25. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 26. 25. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 26. The advertisement which was issued for filling up the post of Lecturer in Chemistry could not have been filled up by a person belonging to the subject of Industrial Chemistry when the same having been specifically not mentioned in the advertisement that a Master's degree holder in the said subject would also be suitable for being considered. There could have been intending candidates who would have applied for becoming candidate as against the said advertised post, had they known and were informed through advertisement that Industrial Chemistry is also one of the qualifications for filling up the said post. 27. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 16. Further it is not for the Court to provide the equivalence relating to educational qualifications inasmuch as the said issue has been settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (1975) 3 SCC 76 wherein it is held that the question in regard to equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standards and practical attainments of such qualifications and where the decision of the Government is based on the recommendation of an expert body which possesses the requisite knowledge, skill and expertise for adequately discharging such a function, the Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by the technical insights necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision of the Government. 10. A division bench of this Court has, in the case of Vishnu Bawaree S/o. Sajjan Lal Bawaree vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1613/2018 vide judgement dated 26.07.2021, held as under: "10. It is well settled that it is the prerogative of the State as employer to prescribe the eligibility qualification for recruitment to any post. It is not within the domain of the Court to read something in the statutory qualification prescribed, which is not there and expand the eligibility qualification prescribed or to prescribe a qualification different than the statutorily prescribed on the basis of possible intendment. It is not within the domain of the Court to read something in the statutory qualification prescribed, which is not there and expand the eligibility qualification prescribed or to prescribe a qualification different than the statutorily prescribed on the basis of possible intendment. Even, the candidate possessing the higher qualification cannot always claim that he satisfies the requirement of lower eligibility qualification prescribed for any post in service by the State as an employer, taking into consideration the functions to be discharged by the candidate to be appointed on the concerned post. Thus, the learned Single Judge has committed no error in holding that the matter with regard to the equivalence of qualification cannot be gone into by the Court and it is better left to be decided by academic experts qualified for the work. 11. Moreover, in the instant case, the eligibility qualification as prescribed require Masters Degree in specific subjects and thus, the question of examining the issue of equivalence of the degree of MBA acquired by the appellant, does not arise for consideration. 12. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 404 , where the issue involved was whether the qualification of Diploma in Electrical Engineering/Electronics & Communication would satisfy the requirement of prescribed eligibility qualification of Matriculation with ITI in Electric Trade, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, categorically held : "26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. 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. The decision in Jyoti KK turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench. 27. 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. That is why the decision in Jyoti KK must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti KK turned. 28. Ms. Wadia sought to draw sustenance from the fact that the holder of an ITI certification can obtain lateral entry to the diploma course. The point of the matter, however, is that none of the appellants fit the description of candidates who had secured an ITI certification before seeking a lateral entry to a diploma course. Plainly, when an ITI with matric is required, a person who does not hold that qualification is not eligible." (emphasis supplied) 12. The point of the matter, however, is that none of the appellants fit the description of candidates who had secured an ITI certification before seeking a lateral entry to a diploma course. Plainly, when an ITI with matric is required, a person who does not hold that qualification is not eligible." (emphasis supplied) 12. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad (supra), it can be safely concluded that a candidate for recruitment to any post must possess the requisite qualification statutorily prescribed and the Court exercising the power of judicial review cannot expand upon the ambit of prescribed qualification. The equivalence of qualification is in exclusive domain of the recruiting authority. 11. In the backdrop of aforesaid settled legal principles of law, this Court does not find any error in the judgement dated 3.7.2019 warranting any interference in its intra court appellate jurisdiction. 12. The special appeal is dismissed accordingly.