JUDGMENT : 1. By way of the instant appeal, a challenge is made to the order impugned dated 29.08.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petition preferred by the appellant herein, was dismissed. 2. The concise and ineluctable factual matrix of the instant appeal dictates as under:- 2.1. That the appellant was appointed on the post of Senior Demonstrator under the Pathology Department on 24.07.2019. 2.2. That on 29.12.2020, the Rajasthan Medical Education Society, Jaipur issued a Circular incorporating the requirement of completion of five years of regular and continuous service on the post of Senior Demonstrator, before being eligible for the grant of the no-objection certificate/permission, for pursuing higher Post- Graduate education. 2.3. That resultantly, owing to the said requirement, the appellant was denied the grant of the no-objection certificate for pursuing his higher education, not having completed five years of service on the said post. 2.4. That being aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13593/2023 titled as Dr. Sunil Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. In the said petition, a challenge was made to the circular dated 29.12.2020 which mandated five years of service on the post of Senior Demonstrator as a pre-requisite for pursuing higher education. 2.5. That the said petition came to be dismissed vide order impugned dated 29.08.2023. As a result, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the order impugned has been passed in contravention to the settled position of law, without taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of the said claim, learned counsel submitted that the impugned condition of requiring minimum five years of service for undertaking the Post- Graduate education is ex-facie arbitrary and discriminatory, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as similarly situated persons, who are working in the State Government, are permitted to undertake Post-Graduate education, after the completion of three years of service only. Furthermore, it was averred that the respondents cannot adopt dual standards, where on the one hand, permission to undertake Post-Graduate education is denied by the respondents before completing five years of service on the ground non-availability of Senior Demonstrators and on the other hand, the respondents have themselves taken a decision to not only discontinue but also abolish the post of Senior Demonstrators w.e.f. 31.07.2023. Thus, whilst alleging discrimination and seeking parity with the employees of the State Government who are permitted to undertake Post-Graduate education after the completion of three years only, the appellant prayed for the quashing of the order impugned. Lastly, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the reliance placed upon the judgment of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1462/2022 titled as Meena Nitharwal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., by the learned Single Judge is misconceived, being contrary to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, whilst praying for the dismissal of the instant appeal, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of material aspects, arrived at a logical conclusion. Therefore, no interference is warranted with the order impugned dated 29.08.2023. 5. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides and scanned the record of the instant appeal. 6. At the outset, this Court deems it appropriate to note that the central grievance articulated by the appellant pertains to the respondents not permitting the appellant to undertake Post- Graduate education, solely on the ground that the appellant has not yet completed five years of regular and continuous service on the post of Senior Demonstrator, which constitutes a pre-requisite for obtaining the no-objection certificate. Moreover, the relief claimed and/or the challenge made to the above-said requirement imposed vide circular dated 29.12.2020 is on the ground of discrimination as against the employees of the State Government, who are permitted to pursue higher education, after completing three years of service only. Thus, nature of the relief sought stems from claiming parity on account of the purported/alleged discrimination. 7. Thus, nature of the relief sought stems from claiming parity on account of the purported/alleged discrimination. 7. In order to assess the relief of parity, this Court must first evaluate the averment of the appellant that hostile discrimination is caused to the appellant on account of the discriminatory approach adopted by the respondents in establishing a differentiable criteria i.e. requirement of service of three years juxtaposed with the requirement of five years, insofar as two identical sets of individuals are concerned i.e. Senior Demonstrators working in medical colleges under the Government of Rajasthan and Senior Demonstrators working in the medical colleges run by Government Societies. 8. However, as a natural precursor to the adjudication upon the relief of parity, this Court must assess whether parity can be sought by the appellant in relation to those employees who are rendering their services in medical colleges run by the Government of Rajasthan as opposed to those medical colleges run by the Government Societies i.e. autonomous bodies, wherein the appellant is employed. 9. Upon a mere assessment of the nature of administration of the two sets of medical colleges as noted above, this Court deems it appropriate to note that medical colleges run by the Government of Rajasthan are squarely distinct from those medical colleges run by autonomous bodies such as the Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Government Societies), on account of the following distinguishable features: (i) Infrastructure (ii) Service Conditions/Rules and Regulations (iii) Facilities (iv) Modes of recruitment (v) Faculty. Therefore, no overlapping yardstick can be applied to the said distinct set of medical colleges for claiming parity in the service conditions so imposed for pursuing higher education, such as that of rendering service of five years on the post of Senior Demonstrator. In essence, the appellant who is rendering his services in a medical college run by the Rajasthan Medical Education Society (Government Society) cannot claim parity with those individuals working in medical colleges run by the Government of Rajasthan, as the two noted sets of medical colleges fall in different categories owing to their administrative set-up, including infrastructure, service conditions, modes of recruitment etc. 10. Therefore, relying upon the aforesaid, it can be conclusively said that the application of Article 14, in these facts and circumstances, is misconceived, when there is a valid criteria for differentiating between the service conditions in the two sets of medical colleges noted above. 11. 10. Therefore, relying upon the aforesaid, it can be conclusively said that the application of Article 14, in these facts and circumstances, is misconceived, when there is a valid criteria for differentiating between the service conditions in the two sets of medical colleges noted above. 11. In support of the findings recorded herein-above, this Court deems it appropriate to place reliance upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Civil Appeal No. 3339/2023 titled as Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Anr. vs. Bikartan Das & Ors. The relevant extract is reproduced herein-under:- “37. It is too late in the day for the respondent No. 1 to raise all such issues including infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground of artificial distinction between the Research Assistant and Ayush Doctors. The respondent No. 1 knew from day one i.e., from the date of his appointment that he was being appointed as a Research Assistant. His service conditions and mode of recruitment are different compared to the Ayush Doctors. It is a different thing that he might have treated the patients but that by itself would not entitle him to claim that his age of superannuation should be at par with the Ayush Doctors. 38. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to and rely upon a decision of this Court in the case of State of Bihar and Another v. Teachers’ Association of Govt. Engineering College and Others, reported in (2000) 10 SCC 527 wherein, the respondents were teachers of three engineering colleges owned by the State of Bihar. They were recruited through the Bihar Public Service Commission. Their service conditions were governed by the Bihar Service Code. Under the relevant provisions of the Bihar Service Code, the age of superannuation up to 1989, was 58 years. However, with effect from 01/10/1989 it was raised to 60 years. They claimed that their age of retirement should be the same as the age of retirement of Bihar Engineering College which was a college of the Patna University. Its teachers were recruited through the University Service Commission. Their service conditions were governed under the Patna University Act. At the relevant time, the age of retirement for university teachers was 62 years. However, with effect from 15/08/1992 the age of retirement was reduced to 60 years. The respondent’s claim was upheld by the High Court. Its teachers were recruited through the University Service Commission. Their service conditions were governed under the Patna University Act. At the relevant time, the age of retirement for university teachers was 62 years. However, with effect from 15/08/1992 the age of retirement was reduced to 60 years. The respondent’s claim was upheld by the High Court. Allowing the State’s appeal, this Court held:- “5. The respondents contend that their age of retirement should be the same as the age of retirement of university teachers employed in Bihar Engineering College, Patna. But the terms and conditions of service of teachers in the three engineering colleges of the State are different from the terms and conditions of service of the university teachers employed in Bihar Engineering College at Patna. The authority responsible for recruitment is also different. The method of recruitment is different and service conditions are prescribed under different rules and regulations and/or under a separate Act. We fail to see how in respect of the teachers who are government servants, governed by the Bihar Service Code, the age of superannuation should be different from the age of superannuation for all other government servants governed by the Bihar Service Code. The High Court ought not to have equated the service conditions in the three State colleges with the service conditions in a University college. Application of Article 14, in these circumstances, is misconceived, when there are valid criteria for differentiating between the service conditions in the two sets of colleges. In the premises the impugned judgment of the High Court insofar as it directs that the age of superannuation of teachers working in the three engineering colleges other than Bihar College of Engineering, Patna should be brought on par with the age of superannuation of those working in Bihar College of Engineering at Patna, is set aside. The further direction to pay arrears or give benefits flowing from the extended age of superannuation is also set aside. The appeals are allowed accordingly.” 12. Therefore, it can be conclusively said that the employees of autonomous bodies, such as the medical colleges run by Government Societies, cannot claim as a matter of right, the same service rules/benefits on par with the government employees, especially when the employees of such autonomous bodies are governed by their own service rules and service conditions. Therefore, it can be conclusively said that the employees of autonomous bodies, such as the medical colleges run by Government Societies, cannot claim as a matter of right, the same service rules/benefits on par with the government employees, especially when the employees of such autonomous bodies are governed by their own service rules and service conditions. As a result, the State Government and the autonomous bodies(herein, Rajasthan Medical Education Society) cannot be put on the same pedestal. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Bhagwan and Ors. reported in (2022) 4 SCC 193 . 13. Lastly, it is noted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Meena Nitharwal (Supra), while dealing with an identical lis, has also held as under: “32. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a artificial distinction by the respondents by prescribing two different conditions for Senior Demonstrators and the College of the respondent No. 4, not being a private College, is also on the same pedestal and as such no different conditions could have been provided, suffice it to say by this Court that the Medical College run by the Government, Government Societies and the Government Universities fall in different categories and there is a valid classification for the purpose of considering the service conditions of the employees working in these Colleges. 33. This Court finds that if the Medical Colleges run by the Government provides requirement of three years of regular and continuous service for the purpose of grant of NOC for higher studies, the same yardstick cannot be applied on the Government Societies run Colleges, as these Colleges have recently been established and they need to have proper infrastructure, facility and faculty.” 14. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of material aspects, arrived at a logical conclusion. This Court is in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge. 15. Therefore, relying upon the observations made herein-above, this Court is inclined to dismiss the instant appeal. 16. As a result, the instant appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.