JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners have challenged the vires of the Rajasthan Educational (State and Subordinate) Service Rules, 2021 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the said Rules') which came to be amended vide Rajasthan Educational (State and Subordinate) Service (Amendment) Rules, 2022 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the amendment Rules') to the extent these Rules prescribe minimum educational qualifications for eligibility for direct recruitment to the post of basic computer instructor. 2. The petitioners hold three years diploma in computer science. By virtue of the said Rules as amended by the amendment Rules, the post of basic computer instructor is to be filled up through direct recruitment. To be eligible, a candidate must satisfy the following educational criteria:- 2 Basic Computer Instructor 100% Graduate and 'A' Level/PGDCA (Minimum one year) Or Bachelor in Engineering (B.E.)/Bachelor in Technology (B.Tech) in Computer Science (CS)/Information Technology (IT)/Electronics & Communications Engineering (ECE)/Electrical Engineering (EE)/ Electrical and Electronics Engineering (EEE)/ Electronic Instrumentation & Control (EIC)/ Telecommunications & Instrumentation (TIE) OR B.Sc. in Computer Science (CS)/Information Technology (IT) OR Bachelor in Computer Application (BCA) from a University established by the law in India OR Any equivalent or higher qualification recognised by the Government 3. The short contention of the petitioners is that exclusion of three years diploma in computer science from the list of eligibility criteria contained in the said Rules for the post in question is arbitrary and discriminatory. This ground the petitioners seek to make good by pointing out that for the post of computer programming assistant, the State recognizes the said qualification as essential eligibility. According to the petitioners nature of duties and responsibilities in both cases being identical, exclusion of this qualification for the purpose of recruitment to the post of basic computer instructor amounts to discrimination. 4. We do not find that the petitioners have made out any case for interference. What should be the eligibility criteria for holding a particular post in public employment has essentially to be left to the discretion of the authorities. The Court would not substitute its opinion for that of recruiting authority in such specialized fields. By mere statement that the two posts namely, basic computer instructor and computer programming assistant involve identical nature of duties, responsibilities and workload, these facts do not get established. Admittedly two posts are in different cadres and carry different nomenclature. The Court would not substitute its opinion for that of recruiting authority in such specialized fields. By mere statement that the two posts namely, basic computer instructor and computer programming assistant involve identical nature of duties, responsibilities and workload, these facts do not get established. Admittedly two posts are in different cadres and carry different nomenclature. Unless and until full duty lists, the nature of job to be performed and all other relevant aspects are brought on record, the two posts cannot be held to be equivalent in all respects. 5. In the result the petition is dismissed.