JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The Instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs : “(i) That the impugned cancellation/rejection letter dated 5.7.2018 i.e. Annexure A-10 may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) That the applicant’s name shall be recommended for appointment to the post of Junior Draftsman (Civil) (Post Code 582) in General BPL category, if the applicant is in a position to be selected in the aforesaid recruitment/selection process on the basis of her merit in her category. Respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to modify the result declared vide Annexure A-9 dated 5.7.2018 for the post of Junior draftsman (Civil) (Post Code 582) if applicant is in a position to qualify in this selection process on the basis of her merit in her category i.e. General (BPL). If during the pendency of this petition respondent No.2 succeed in appointing the person in General (BPL) category for Junior Draftsman (Civil) Post as per the recommendation/result dated 5.7.2018 i.e. Annexure A-9 than appointment of such person shall be quashed and set aside.” 2. The respondent-Commission advertised four posts of Junior Draughtsman (Civil) and essential qualification therein was prescribed as under : “(i) Matric/Higher Secondary Part-I or its equivalent from a recognized Board/University. (ii) At least two years certificate course in the trade of Draughtsman-ship or its equivalent from a Polytechnic Institute/an ITI or from an institute duly recognized by the Central/State Government.” 3. The petitioner applied online in General (BPL) Category and as per Rules of Business and Procedure, no documents in support of essential qualifications were required to be attached. All the applicants, who had deposited requisite examination fee were admitted provisionally for the objective type written screening test on the basis of their undertaking/declaration. Condition No.4 of the advertisement provided for important instructions for filling up online application of the Commission, wherein the candidates were required to ensure their eligibility, age, experience, if any, before applying for the advertised posts so as to avoid rejection at later stage. The petitioner after qualifying the objective type written test was shortlisted for further selection process/15 marks evaluation and was asked to submit requisite certificates/documents/testimonials in support of her claim made in the application form as well as on prescribed parameters at the time of counselling/evaluation, which was held on 22.6.2018. The petitioner after qualifying the objective type written test was shortlisted for further selection process/15 marks evaluation and was asked to submit requisite certificates/documents/testimonials in support of her claim made in the application form as well as on prescribed parameters at the time of counselling/evaluation, which was held on 22.6.2018. The petitioner at the time of counselling produced diploma in Civil Engineering in support of two years course in the trade of draughtsman-ship or its equivalent from a polytechnic institute/an ITI or from an institute duly recognized by the Central/State Government, as such, her candidature was rejected by the Commission, constraining the petitioner to file the instant petition. 4. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner is at great-pain to argue that the syllabus of draughtsman-ship trade of ITI is covered in the subject of Diploma in Civil Engineering, mainly in the subjects applied Mechanics, Maths, Engineering Drawing, General Workshop Practice, Building Construction, Building Material, Fluid Mechanics, Surveying, Building Drawing, Concrete Technology, Water Supply And Waste Water Engineering, Surveying, RC, Transportation Engineering, Irrigation Design and Drawing Quantity Surveying Aand Soil & Foundation Engineering. He further argued that topics, which were taught in ITI draughtsman-ship trade are those topics, which otherwise have been taught in the Polytechnic Diploma of Civil Engineering in the subject mentioned above and, therefore, should be treated as an equivalent subject. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, learned counsel for the Commission argued that since the petitioner did not possess the essential qualification prescribed in the R & P Rues, which was mentioned in the advertisement, therefore, her candidature has been rightly rejected. 6. To similar effect is the argument addressed by Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on the file minutely. 8. The core issue before the Court is whether the qualification possessed by the petitioner i.e. Diploma in Civil Engineering can be treated to be equivalent to a two years certificate course in the trade of draughtsman-ship or its equivalent from a Polytechnic Institute/an ITI or from an Institute duly recognized by the Central/State Government. It is more than settled that the grant of equivalence is an administrative decision, which is sole discretion of the authority concerned and the Courts do not have expertize in such matters. It is more than settled that the grant of equivalence is an administrative decision, which is sole discretion of the authority concerned and the Courts do not have expertize in such matters. Grant of equivalence or a revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision, which is in the sole discretion of the authority and the Court has nothing to do in such matters. The matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the Government and Courts do not have expertise in such matters, hence it should exercise judicial restrain and not interfering in it. The question of equivalence or qualification otherwise fall in the realm of policy decision to be taken by the State. It is beyond the scope of judicial purview for the High Court to draw equivilance qualification. 9. At this stage, it shall be apt to refer to one of the later judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Devender Bhaskar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 2021 (14) Scale 131 , wherein while dealing with the scope of the writ Court in drawing an equivalence of Diploma/Degree observed as under : “20. We have already noticed that one of the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Arts and Crafts teacher as per the advertisement dated 20.07.2006 is a “two-year Diploma in Art and Craft examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana Education Department.” It was made clear by the Industrial Training and Vocational Educational Department, Haryana, that diploma in Art and Craft Course by the Kurukshetra University is conducted through distance education and that this course cannot be equated with two-year diploma in Art and Craft Course awarded by the Haryana Industrial Training Department. Recognition of the said Course by the State of Haryana, as held by the High Court, is entirely different from its equivalence. When the experts in the Education Department have held the diploma in Art and Craft by the Kurukshetra University is not equivalent to the two-year diploma in Art and Craft awarded by the Haryana Industrial Training Department, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in equalizing them. 21. In Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. When the experts in the Education Department have held the diploma in Art and Craft by the Kurukshetra University is not equivalent to the two-year diploma in Art and Craft awarded by the Haryana Industrial Training Department, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in equalizing them. 21. In Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., it was held that the question regarding 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. It was further held that where the decision of the Government is based on the recommendation of an expert body, then the Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by technical insights necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision of the Government unless it is based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations or actuated mala fides or is irrational and perverse or manifestly wrong. 22. In J. Ranga Swamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, this Court held that it is not for the court to consider the relevance of qualification prescribed for various posts. 23. In State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Lata Arun, this Court held that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It was held thus: “13. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority.” 24. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr., this Court has reiterated that equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr., this Court has reiterated that equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. Dealing specifically with whether a distance education course was equivalent to the degree of MA (English) of the appellant university therein, the Court held that no material had been produced before it to show that the distance education course had been recognized as such. 25. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors., it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine. 26. Having regard to the above, in our view, the High Court has erred in holding that the diploma/degree in Art and Craft given by the Kurukshetra University is equivalent to two-year Diploma in Art and Craft examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or diploma in Art and Craft conducted by Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana.’’ 10. Now we may at this stage refer to the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Unnikrishnan CV and others Vs. Union of India and others, 2023 (5) Scale 70, wherein it has been observed as under : “xx xx xx 3. For promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I, the prescribed or requisite qualification is from the candidates/employees working as Superintendent, BR Grade-II with recognized Diploma in Civil Engineering with 5 years regular service in the Grade in General Reserve Engineering Force. The officers who are on deputation/transfer and holding analogous/equivalent posts under the Central and State Governments or post in the scale of 425-700 or equivalent with 3 years regular service in Grade and possessing the qualification prescribed in column No. 7 are also entitled to be considered for being promoted as superintendent BR Grade-I. 4. The officers who are on deputation/transfer and holding analogous/equivalent posts under the Central and State Governments or post in the scale of 425-700 or equivalent with 3 years regular service in Grade and possessing the qualification prescribed in column No. 7 are also entitled to be considered for being promoted as superintendent BR Grade-I. 4. The contentions which came to be raised before the High Court by the writ appellants were two-fold, namely, (i) a direction for promotion to the post of Grade-I being issued, and (ii) a direction to the Union of India to grant pay-scale of 5000-8000 with effect from 01.01.1996 in accordance with recommendation of 6th Central Pay Commission. It was also contended that Diploma is equivalent to Degree which is required for recruitment to the post of Grade-I. It is in this background the High Court vide paragraph 4 of impugned judgment has examined this argument and negatived the contention of the appellants, holding that claim is without any basis and on account of appellants not possessing Degree their claim came to be rejected. However, in so far as claim with regard to the grant of pay-scale as sought for was granted and undisputedly there is no challenge by the Union of India to the second prayer granted. It is only the first prayer wherein promotion which was sought for, which has been negatived has been assailed in the present appeal. 5. In this background, the qualification as prescribed in column No. 11 of GREF Rules, 1982 when perused, would indicate that candidate who is seeking promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I has to possess “Diploma in Civil Engineering” with 5 years regular service in the grade of General Reserve Engineering Force. Whereas appellants are possessing Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED), which fact is not seriously disputed by them. Mr. Whereas appellants are possessing Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED), which fact is not seriously disputed by them. Mr. Tapas Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has fairly conceded before this Court that an erroneous proposition was put forth before the High Court, namely, it was contended that Diploma is equivalent to a Degree and as such negating said contention, the High Court though justified its conclusion had erred in ignoring the consistent stand that had been taken by the Appellants, namely, Diploma in DED possessed by them is that of 2 years course and though column 11 prescribes Diploma in Civil Engineering for being promoted as Superintendent BR-Grade-I is to be treated as equivalent and this aspect was required to be considered by the High Court is an argument which looks attractive at first blush. However, on a careful perusal of the extant Rules as applicable for promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-II, said contention has to be necessarily rejected for reasons more than one. Firstly, before the High Court appellants attempted to justify their claim contending “Diploma” is equivalent to a “Degree” and as such being entitled for promotion which has been negatived by the High Court and rightly so. Secondly, appellants tried to justify their claim contending rule as applicable for direct recruitment would be applicable for recruitment by promotion, which has not been accepted by the High Court. In so far as the contention regarding qualification for promotion, the rule itself is explicit and clear, namely, it prescribes for promotion to Superintendent BR Grade-I only, those candidates possessing Diploma in Civil Engineering with 5 years regular service in the grade in General Reserve Engineering Force would be eligible. No doubt, said rule is silent with regard to Diploma in Civil Engineering being either 3 years or otherwise. It is an undisputed fact that appellants possess ‘Diploma in DED’ and not ‘Diploma in Civil Engineering’. It is trite law that courts would not prescribe the qualification and/or declare the equivalency of a course. Until and unless rule itself prescribes the equivalency namely, different courses being treated alike, the courts would not supplement its views or substitute its views to that of expert bodies. 6. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr., this Court has reiterated that equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Until and unless rule itself prescribes the equivalency namely, different courses being treated alike, the courts would not supplement its views or substitute its views to that of expert bodies. 6. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr., this Court has reiterated that equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. Dealing specifically with whether a distance education course was equivalent to the degree of MA (English) of the appellant university therein, the Court held that no material had been produced before it to show that the distance education course had been recognized as such. 7. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors., it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine. (Emphasis supplied) 8. The diploma courses offered by College of Military Engineering, Pune, (CME) has been recognized as a course for recruitment to the post under the Central Government vide notification dated 01.02.2001, issued by Ministry of Human Resource Development (Annexure P-8). Said notification does not indicate diploma courses specified therein which are recognized by the Government of India are to be treated as equivalent. No material has been placed on record by the appellants to demonstrate that Diploma in DED is equivalent to Diploma in Civil Engineering. 9. The presumption on which the Writ Petition seems to have been presented is on the premise that appellants have been denied promotion on the ground that they possess a two year diploma not three year diploma, by completely ignoring the fact that denial of promotion is on the ground that candidates do not possess the prescribed requisite qualification namely “Diploma in Civil Engineering” and “Diploma in DED” possessed by them is not as prescribed under the Rules. It is no doubt true that eligibility for promotional post namely Superintendent BR Grade-I is not conditioned by any year wise stipulations vis-a-vis the diploma course. In that view of the matter, prayer of the appellants cannot be granted for the reasons indicated hereinabove and we do not find any fallacy in the reasons assigned by the High Court. xx xx xx” 11. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law and further because the Recruiting Agency has not included the subject of Diploma in Civil Engineering to be equivalent of two years’ certificate course in the trade of draughtsman-ship, in terms of the R&P Rules, this Court has no jurisdiction or expertise to decide the question of equivalence. In addition to above, we do not find any reason to interfere, as the selected candidate, who was otherwise possessing the requisite qualification, has already joined and is working for the last about 5 years. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.