ORDER : 1. Since, an identical issue and common facts are involved in the bunch of the writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being disposed off by this common order. 2. The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement for appointment to the post of Professor in various subjects in the Department of Higher Education, State of Chhattisgarh on 23.01.2019. After issuance of advertisement the State Government on 13.02.2019 issued a list of allied subjects for the various main subjects. Thereafter, on 23.02.2019 The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission issued a corrigendum. The examination was conducted on 05-06/11/2020 and result thereof was declared on 19.01.2021. Call letters were issued on 24.06.2021 to the successful candidates including petitioners for appearing in the interview and the petitioners were directed to get the documents verified one day before the date of interview. The petitioners appeared for verification of documents and were found to be disqualified. 3. The petitioners have filed these petitions challenging the action of the respondents by which they have found the petitioners ineligible for appointment whereas in W.P. (S) No. 3898/2022, W.P. (S) No. 3906/2022, W.P. (S) No. 3909/2022 and W.P. (S) No. 3976/2022 the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appointment order as they were eligible and placed in higher rank in the final merit list. The brief facts as projected by the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 3898/2022, W.P. (S) No. 3906/2022, W.P. (S) No. 3909/2022, W.P. (S) No. 3976/2022 4. The case of the petitioners Ranjana Singh, Raghvendra Kumar Dewangan, Dileshwar Prasad, Vijay Shankar Patre, in brief, is that the petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Botany) pursuance to the advertisement No. 02/2019/Exam notification dated 18/01/2019 issued on 23/01/2019 by the Respondent No. 02 & 03. Admit cards have been issued to the petitioners to participate in the written examination and after qualifying the written examination the petitioners were called for interview. In the said interview process wherein they were selected for the post of Assistant Professor (Botany) and were placed at Serial Nos. 50, 68, 75, and 98 respectively in the result dated 14/07/2021, but till date the appointment letter/joining letter of the petitioners in the post of Assistant Professor have not been issued without any rhyme and reason. It has also been contended that inaction on the part of the respondent authorities is totally illegal, arbitrary and mala-fide. 50, 68, 75, and 98 respectively in the result dated 14/07/2021, but till date the appointment letter/joining letter of the petitioners in the post of Assistant Professor have not been issued without any rhyme and reason. It has also been contended that inaction on the part of the respondent authorities is totally illegal, arbitrary and mala-fide. It is also pertinent to mention here that the State Government vide its order dated 16/02/2023 (Annexure P/3) has issued the appointment letter to one Deepika Tripathi, who is not a party to the instant petitions and have not issued the appointment letter to the present petitioners even after they have qualified & have successfully passed the examination for the post of Assistant Professor. Thus, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to issue appointment order to the petitioners. The brief facts as projected by the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 3722/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3606/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3572/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3616/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3714/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3469/2021 5. The case of other petitioners namely Anand Lakra, Umesh Chandra Deshmukh, Komal Nandanwar, Jayant Kumar Rajwade, Dilruba A. Bano, Anurag Soni, Suman Rawte, Naveen Kumar Markam, Tulesh Kumar Gendley, Mukesh Kumar Sahu, Nilesh Kumar Rajwade, Nishat Parveen, Namrata Dhirhi, Namita Singh, Amrita Giri, Richa Sao, Tarun Sigh Patel, Hemant Sahu and Hem Lal Chandrakar is that they have been found ineligible on the count that their qualification possessed by them is not as per the requirement for the post of Assistant Professor (Botany). The details of qualification possessed by them are as under: Petitioners Anand Lakdra, Umesh Chandra Deshmukh, Jayant Kumar Rajwade, Dilruba A. Bano, Anurag Soni, Suman Rawte, Naveen Kumar Markam, Tulesh Kumar Gendley, Mukesh Kumar Sahu, Nilesh Kumar Rajwade, Nishat Parveen, Namrata Dhirhi, Namita Singh, Amrita Giri, Richa Sao, Tarun Sigh Patel, Hemant Sahu are having M.Sc. (Agriculture) in Plant Breeding and Genetics, petitioner Komal Nandanwar is having M.Sc. in Forestry and Wildlife, petitioner Pawan Kumar was found ineligible as he has not submitted M.Sc. Degree in Botany though he has awarded Ph.D. Degree from Southern Illinois Carbondale, U.S.A. in affiliated Ph.D. programme in a consolidated mode of six years duration in the subject of plant biology. (Agriculture) in Plant Breeding and Genetics, petitioner Komal Nandanwar is having M.Sc. in Forestry and Wildlife, petitioner Pawan Kumar was found ineligible as he has not submitted M.Sc. Degree in Botany though he has awarded Ph.D. Degree from Southern Illinois Carbondale, U.S.A. in affiliated Ph.D. programme in a consolidated mode of six years duration in the subject of plant biology. According to the petitioner he has studied and awarded Ph.D. from Sanghai Jiao Tong Univerty of U.S.A. which falls in top 450-500 in the academic ranking of the world universities. Petitioner Hemlal Chandrakar is having M.Sc. (Agriculture) in Agro-Forestry. The brief facts as projected by the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 3766/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3788/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3862/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3785/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3789/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3940/2021 6. The case of petitioners Payal Devi Chandrakar, Chandrashekhar Netam, Supria Xalxo, Namrata Kahar, Alok Kujur, Yogesh Kumar Sidar, Akhilesh Kumar, Akash Nirmal, Manmohan Singh Bisen, Rajesh Kumar Patel, Parmeshwar Gore, Hemkant Chandravanshi, Mohan Singh Maravi and Rajesh Kumar Ekka is that they applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject Zoology. They were found ineligible on the count that they have not passed post graduate examination in the relevant subject - Zoology, nor passed the post graduate examination in any of the allied subjects corresponding to the subject Zoology, as declared by the State Government. The qualification of the petitioners are as under: The petitioners Payal Devi Chandrakar, Chandrashekhar Netam, Yogesh Kumar Sidar, Akhilesh Kumar, Akash Nirmal, Manmohan Singh Bisen, Rajesh Kumar Patel, Parmeshwar Gore, Hemkant Chandravanshi, Mohan Singh Maravi and Rajesh Kumar Ekka are having MSc. (Agriculture) in Entomology, the petitioners Supria Xalxo, Alok Kujur are having M.Sc. In Medical Biotechnology, the petitioner Namrata Kahar is having M.Sc. in Biotechnology. The brief facts as projected by the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 4026/2021, W.P. (S) No. 4173/2021, W.P. (S) No. 4157/2021, W.P. (S) No. 4026/2021 7. The case of petitioners Bharti Gajendra, Prem Prakash, Yogesh Kumar Dongre and Anuradha Rana is that they applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject Physics. They were found ineligible on the count that they have not passed post graduate examination in the relevant subject - Physics, nor passed the post graduate examination in any of the allied subjects corresponding to the subject Physics, as declared by the State Government. They were found ineligible on the count that they have not passed post graduate examination in the relevant subject - Physics, nor passed the post graduate examination in any of the allied subjects corresponding to the subject Physics, as declared by the State Government. The qualification of the petitioners are as under: The petitioner Bharti Gajendra is having M.Tech (Electronics and Telecommunication), the petitioner Prem Prakash is having M.Tech. (V.L.S.I. Design), the petitioner Yogesh Kumar Dongre, Anuradha Rana are having M.Tech. (Opto Electronics and Laser Technology). The brief facts as projected by the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 5865/2022 8. The case of petitioner Juhee Dewangan is that she applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject Physics, she has the requisite educational eligibility and fulfill the term and conditions of the advertisement hence she is selected candidate but since this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4026/2021 filed by the respondent No. 4 Bharti Gajendra has directed one post shall be kept in abeyance on 29.07.2021, therefore, the post is lying vacant though the petitioner has secured 190.1469 which is 10 mark than the respondent No. 4 as she has secured 180.1475 marks. The brief facts as projected by the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 3433/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3959/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3952/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3946/2021, W.P. (S) No. 4096/2021 W.P. (S) No. 4004/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3968/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3962/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3960/2021. 9. The case of petitioners Neha Dewangan, Rajni Sahu, Shailja Singh, Mithlesh Patel, Rajeshwari Netam, Prerna Verma, Ganesh Ram Nayak, Abhisekh Singh, Lokesh Kumar Rathore, Nilmani Verma, Rohit Kumar Miri, Abhinav Mukherjee, Anuradha Shyam, Keshika Jangde and Ramesh Kumar Singh is that they applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject Computer Application. They were found ineligible on the count that they do not possess Master in Computer Application. The qualification of the petitioners are follows: W.P. (S) No. Petitioner's Name Post Graduate Qualification of the Petitioner 3433/2021 Neha Dewangan M.Sc. (Computer Sc.) 3959/2021 Rajni Sahu M.Sc. (Computer Sc.) 3952/2021 Shailja Singh M.Tech. (Comp. Tech.) Mithlesh Patel M.Tech. (Comp. Tech.) 3946/2021 Rajeshwari Netam M.Tech. (Comp. Eng.) 4096/2021 Prerna Verma M.Tech. (Comp. Sc. & Eng.) Ganesh Ram Nayak M.Tech. (Comp. Sc. & Eng.) Abhisekh Singh M.Tech. (Comp. Sc. & Eng.) 3968/2021 Lokesh Kumar Rathore M.Tech. (Software Eng.) 4004/2021 Nilmani Verma M.Tech. (Compter Sc.) 3962/2021 Rohit Kumar Miri M.Tech. (Computer Sc.) 3952/2021 Shailja Singh M.Tech. (Comp. Tech.) Mithlesh Patel M.Tech. (Comp. Tech.) 3946/2021 Rajeshwari Netam M.Tech. (Comp. Eng.) 4096/2021 Prerna Verma M.Tech. (Comp. Sc. & Eng.) Ganesh Ram Nayak M.Tech. (Comp. Sc. & Eng.) Abhisekh Singh M.Tech. (Comp. Sc. & Eng.) 3968/2021 Lokesh Kumar Rathore M.Tech. (Software Eng.) 4004/2021 Nilmani Verma M.Tech. (Compter Sc.) 3962/2021 Rohit Kumar Miri M.Tech. (Computer Eng.) 3855/2021 Abhinav Mukherjee M.Tech. (Computer Tech.) 3960/2021 Anuradha Shyam M.Tech. (Comp. Tech. & App.) Keshika Jangde M.Tech. (Comp. Tech. & App.) Ramesh Kumar Singh M.Tech. (Comp. Tech. & App.) The brief facts as projected by the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 3859/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3842/2021, W.P. (S) No. 4153/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3901/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3845/2021 10. Petitioners Rohit Kumar Miri, Keshika Jangde, Ramesh Kumar Singh, Anukul Thawarey, Tarun Lal Amariya, Balmukund Netam, Rajeshwari Netam applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject Computer Science. They were found ineligible on the count that they do not possess Master in Computer Science. The qualification of the petitioners are as follows: W.P. (S) No. Petitioner's Name Post Graduate Qualification of the Petitioner 3859/2021 Rohit Kumar Miri M.Tech. (Computer Eng.) 3842/2021 Keshika Jangde M.Tech. (Comp. Tech. & App.) Ramesh Kumar Singh M.Tech. (Computer Sc. & Eng.) 4153/2021 Anukul Thawarey M.Tech. (Computer Tech.) Tarun Lal Amariya M.Tech. (Computer Tech.) 3901/2021 Balmukund Netam M.Tech. (Information Tech.) 3845/2021 Rajeshwari Netam M.Tech. (Computer Eng.) The brief facts as projected by the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 3966/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3872/2021 and W.P. (S) No. 3884/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3704/2021 11. Petitioners Sheshnarayan Sahu, Narendra Kumar Baghel, Ganesh Ram Nayak, Abhishek Kumar Singh, Anuradha Shyam, Ramesh Kumar Singh, Chandrakala, Rahul Kumar applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the subject Information Technology. They were found ineligible on the count that they do not possess Master of Science in Information Technology but they possess M.Tech Degree in Computer Science and Engineering. W.P. (S) No. Petitioner's Name Post Graduate Qualification of the Petitioner 3966/2021 Sheshnarayan Sahu M.Tech. (Computer Sc. & Eng.) Narendra Kumar Baghel M.Tech. (Computer Sc. & Eng.) Ganesh Ram Nayak M.Tech. (Computer Sc. & Eng.) Abhishek Kumar Singh M.Tech. (Computer Sc. & Eng.) 3872/2021 Anuradha Shyam M.Tech. (Computer Sc. & Eng.) Ramesh Kumar Singh M.Tech. (Computer Sc. & Eng.) 3884/2021 Chandrakala M.Tech. (Computer Sc.) 3704/2021 Rahul Kumar M.Tech (I.T.) but having cleared S.E.T. in Computer Science and Application 12. (Computer Sc. & Eng.) Ganesh Ram Nayak M.Tech. (Computer Sc. & Eng.) Abhishek Kumar Singh M.Tech. (Computer Sc. & Eng.) 3872/2021 Anuradha Shyam M.Tech. (Computer Sc. & Eng.) Ramesh Kumar Singh M.Tech. (Computer Sc. & Eng.) 3884/2021 Chandrakala M.Tech. (Computer Sc.) 3704/2021 Rahul Kumar M.Tech (I.T.) but having cleared S.E.T. in Computer Science and Application 12. This Court during pendency of bunch of these petitions have passed various directions and vide order dated 13.07.2022 this Court has directed to constitute Equivalence Class Committee and the Minutes of the Meeting shall also be placed on record. The State Government in pursuance of order passed by this Court has issued notification dated 16.08.2022 constituting equivalence committee. The counsel for the State has informed the Court on 15.09.2022 that they have already called the record from Public Service Commission with regard to the subject matter in which equivalence was sought. This Court has further directed the Secretary Higher Education Government of Chhattisgarh to forward entire papers to the committee. This Court has again directed the State on 15.11.2022 to file an affidavit wherein they have been directed to submit the decision taken by the committee with regard to equivalence of subject which has been agitated by the petitioners before this Court. The State has not filed detailed affidavit as observed by this Court on 14.12.2022 and 14.01.2023, therefore, one opportunity was extended to the State to comply with the order and subsequently the State has filed their affidavit on 20.03.2023, thereafter the matter was heard and the petitioners, respondents and intervenors were directed to file their written synopsis. 13. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court the State has constituted committee of expert on 09.05.2022 and thereafter on 16.08.2022 for deciding the equivalence in the subject of Botany which consists of professors/Head of the Department Botany of various Government Colleges who have submitted their report on equivalence of subject. The committee has considered the syllabus of various States, Central universities, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (C.S.I.R.) and Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (A.S.R.B.). The committee in W.P. (S) No. 3469/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3616/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3606/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3572/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3714/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3722/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3909/2022, W.P. (S) No. 3898/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3906/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3976/2022 has given its report. The committee in W.P. (S) No. 3469/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3616/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3606/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3572/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3714/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3722/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3909/2022, W.P. (S) No. 3898/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3906/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3976/2022 has given its report. The committee has considered the equivalance of botany in view of amendment made in the advertisement on 23.03.2019 wherein few subjects; Micro Biology, Biotechnology, Bio Science, Environmental Science, Forestry, Bio Chemistry, Bio Informatic Science, Genetics, Industrial Microbiology, Life Science, Genetic Engineering and recorded its finding the above mentioned petitioners have not obtained the post graduate degree in the relevant subject - Botany. They are also not in possession of post graduate degree in the allied subjects corresponding to the subject Botany, as declared by the department of Higher Education. The committee has also considered the comparative tables of syllabus of M.Sc. Agriculture in Genetics and Plant Breeding and M.Sc. in Genetics and also done comparison between syllabus of C.S.I.R. - NET in Life Science and ASRB-NET in Genetics and Plant Breeding also considered comparative table of syllabus between M.Sc. Forestry and M.Sc. Agro-forestry. The Committee has also considered the comparative table of syllabus of M.Sc. Agriculture in Genetics and Plant Breeding and M.Sc. Botany and has found that only 25% similarity with the syllabus of Botany. The committee has also recorded its finding only 10% of similarity between the syllabus of C.S.I.R. NET Life Science and ASRB Net Agro-forestry. Similarly, the committee has also recorded its finding that between M/Sc. Forestry and Agriculture Forestry there is 30% of similarity in the syllabus. Similarly, with M.Sc. Agriculture in Genetics and Plant Breeding and M.Sc. Genetics. 14. In case of Pawan Kumar in W.P. (S) No. 3469/2021 the expert committee has given its opinion that he has not annexed any separate certificate as a testimony to his qualifying master degree examination in the subject-Plant Biology. The petitioner is also not in possession of the Ph.D. degree as per the norms laid down in the Rules/Advertisement. The petitioner has been awarded Ph.D. degree from Southern Illinois Carbondale University, USA, in accelerated Ph.D. program in the consolidate mode of 6 years duration's in the subject Plant Biology. 15. The petitioner is also not in possession of the Ph.D. degree as per the norms laid down in the Rules/Advertisement. The petitioner has been awarded Ph.D. degree from Southern Illinois Carbondale University, USA, in accelerated Ph.D. program in the consolidate mode of 6 years duration's in the subject Plant Biology. 15. Similarly, the State has constituted committee of expert for deciding the equivalence in the subject of Zoology which consists of professors/Head of the Department Zoology of various Government Colleges who have submitted their report on equivalence of subject. The committee in as under the petitioners have passed the Master of Science examination in Medical Biotechnology (M.Sc.). Thereafter they have qualified the CG-SET in the subject of Life Science. They have not passed the post graduate examination in the relevant subject - Zoology, nor passed the post graduate examination in any of the allied subjects corresponding to the subject Zoology, as declared by the State Government. 16. In W.P. (S) No. 3862/2021, The petitioner has passed the M.Sc. Biotechnology Examination at the post graduate level. However, instead of qualifying the NET conducted by UGC, CSIR as laid down in the rules/advertisement, she has qualified the NET in the subject Agricultural Biotechnology conducted by Agricultural Scientist Recruitment Board (ASRB). 17. In W.P. (S) No. 3766/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3789/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3940/2021, the petitioners have passed the M.Sc. (Agriculture) examination in Entomology. Thereafter they have qualified for the NET conducted by the Agricultural Scientist Recruitment Board (ASRB) in the subject of Agricultural Entomology. As per the educational qualifications prescribed in the advertisement, they are required to qualify for the NET conducted by UGC-CSIR. 18. Similarly, the State has constituted committee of expert on 16.08.2022 for deciding the equivalence in the subject of Physics which consist of professors/Head of the Department Physics of various Government Colleges and University who have submitted their report on equivalence of subject. The Expert has also considered the corresponding allied subject with Physics which includes Applied Physics, Material Physics and Electronics. The committee in case W.P. (S) No. 4026/2021, W.P. (S) No. 4173/2021, W.P. (S) No. 4157/2021 has given its equivalence report. In W.P. (S) No. 4026/2021, the petitioner has obtained the Post Graduate Degree - Master of Technology in Electronics & Communication Engineering. Thereafter he has qualified the UGC-NET in the subject Electronic Science. The committee in case W.P. (S) No. 4026/2021, W.P. (S) No. 4173/2021, W.P. (S) No. 4157/2021 has given its equivalence report. In W.P. (S) No. 4026/2021, the petitioner has obtained the Post Graduate Degree - Master of Technology in Electronics & Communication Engineering. Thereafter he has qualified the UGC-NET in the subject Electronic Science. In W.P. (S) No. 4173/2021 the petitioner has obtained the degree of Master of Technology in VLSI Design from VIT University, at the post graduate level. He has qualified the NET conducted by UGC in Electronic Science. In W.P. (S) No. 4157/2021 the petitioners have done Master of Technology (M. Tech) in Opto Electronics and Laser Technology. Thereafter he has qualified the NET conducted by UGC in the subject Electronic Science. The petitioners have not obtained the post graduate degree in the relevant subject - Physics under Science stream, nor are they in possession of post graduate degree in any of the allied subjects corresponding to Physics, as declared by the department of Higher Education. 19. Similarly, the State has constituted committee of experts on 23.08.2022 for deciding the equivalence in the subject of Computer related subjects which consist of Head of the Department in Computer Science Pt. Ravishanker Shukla University, Head of Department of Government Colleges and Head of Department of Information Technology, Government Colleges who have submitted their report on equivalence of subject. Opinion of the Expert Committee regarding Computer Application 20. Regarding W.P. (S) No. 3433/2021 and W.P. (S) No. 3959/2021 it has been pointed out the petitioners are not having Post Graduate Degree in Computer Application (M.C.A.) thus they do not possess requisite qualification and their qualification as M.Sc. Computer Science cannot be treated as equivalent subject. Similarly, regarding W.P. (S) No. 3952/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3946/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3952/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3946/2021, W.P. (S) No. 4096/2021 W.P. (S) No. 4004/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3968/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3962/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3960/2021, the petitioners are having M.Tech with specialization in Computer Technology, thus, they are not having Post Graduate Degree in Computer Application (M.C.A.) as such they do not possess requisite qualification and their qualification as M.Tech with specialization in Computer Technology cannot be treated as equivalent subject. Opinion of the Expert Committee regarding Computer Science 21. Opinion of the Expert Committee regarding Computer Science 21. Regarding W.P. (S) No. 3859/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3842/2021, W.P. (S) No. 4153/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3901/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3845/2021 the petitioners are possessing post graduate examination Master of Technology with Specialization in Computer Technology/Engineering/Science but for the post of Assistant Professor Computer Science a post graduation degree in relevant subject M.Sc. Computer Science is required, thus the petitioners do not possess Master Degree in relevant subject. The committee has further observed that M.Sc. Computer Science and Master of Technology in Computer Engineering with specialisation in Computer Engineering cannot be treated as equivalant subject. Opinion of the Expert Committee regarding Information Technology 22. Regarding W.P. (S) No. 3966/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3872/2021 and W.P. (S) No. 3884/2021 the petitioners are possessing post graduate examination Master of Technology with Specialization in Computer Science and Engineering but for post of Assistant Professor Information Technology a post graduation degree in relevant subject M.Sc. Information Technology is required, thus the petitioners do not possess Master Degree in relevant subject. Regarding W.P. (S) No. 3704/2021 the petitioner is possessing M.Tech (I.T.) but cleared S.E.T. in Computer Science and Application, thus, he is not eligible to be appointed as Assistant Professor (Information Technology). 23. The State has filed their return wherein they have contended that in pursuance of the direction given by this Court, Expert Committee of various subjects has been constituted by the State Government on 16.08.2022 which has examined the qualifications held by the petitioners and the required qualification. The Expert Committee consistently came to a conclusion that the petitioners did not hold the requisite qualification for claiming equivalence in the desired subject for which the petitioners were claiming appointment. They would further submit that this Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot delve into the determination of equivalence of subjects once the expert committee has held that the petitioners do not hold the essential qualification in the allied subject, no relief as claimed by the petitioners can be granted, and would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions. 24. Learned counsel for Public Service Commission would submit they have issued an advertisement on 23.01.2019 for filling up 1384 posts of Assistant Professor for 27 subjects under certain terms and conditions provided in the advertisement. 24. Learned counsel for Public Service Commission would submit they have issued an advertisement on 23.01.2019 for filling up 1384 posts of Assistant Professor for 27 subjects under certain terms and conditions provided in the advertisement. The requisite educational qualification prescribed for the said post in clause 2(iv) of the advertisement and relevant part of the such qualification is quoted below for the ready reference to this Hon’ble Court: ¼d½ vPNs 'kS{kf.kd fjdkMZ ds lkFk fdlh Hkkjrh; fo’ofo|ky; ls LukrdksRrj mikf/k Lrj esa lacaf/kr fo"k; esa de ls de 55 Áfr’kr vad ¼vFkok@7 fcUnq xzsfMax i)fr esa xzsM ^^ch**½ vFkok fdlh ekU;rk ÁkIr fons’kh fo’ofo|ky; ls led{k mikf/kA ¼[k½ mijksDr vgZrkvksa dh iwfrZ djus ds ckn Hkh] vH;FkhZ dks ;wthlh] lh,lvkbZvkj] }kjk lapkfyr jk"Vªh; ik=rk ijh{kk ¼usV½ vFkok ;wthlh }kjk ÁR;kf;r ¼ekU;rk ÁkIr½ lerqY; ijh{kk tSls fd LysV@usV mRrh.kZ djuk gksxkA ¼x½ mi[k.M ¼d½ rFkk ¼[k½ esa varfoZ"V fdlh ckr ds gksrs gq, Hkh ,sls vH;FkhZ ftuds ikl fo’ofo|ky; vuqnku vk;ksx ¼,eŒfQyŒ@ihŒ,pŒMhŒ Ánku djus ds fy, U;wUre ekud ,oa ÁfØ;k½ fofu;e 2009 ds vuqlkj ihŒ,pŒMhŒ mikf/k gks ;k ftUgsa Ánku dh xbZ gks] dks lgk;d Ák/;kid ;k mlds lerqY; in esa HkrhZ rFkk fu;qfDr ds fy;s usV@LysV@lsV dh U;wure ik=rk 'krksZ dh vfuok;Zrk ls NwV jgsxhA ¼?k½ ,sls fo"k;ksa esa LukrdksRrj dk;ZØe ftlds fy;s usV@LysV@lsV ijh{kk vk;ksftr ugha dh tkrh gS] ds fy;s usV@LysV@lsV dh vfuok;Zrk ugha gksxhA 25. The public service commission issued a corrigendum on 23.02.2019 by which a list of the allied subject was published. During verification of documents for shortlisting of the candidates the petitioners have been found ineligible as they do not have the requisite qualifications hence their candidature has been rejected by the Public Service Commission. The petitioners filed writ petitions on the ground that their qualifications are equal to the requisite qualifications and prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider their candidature for the respective post of Assistant Professor in the respective subject in which they applied. During pendency of the writ petition this Court has directed the State to constitute Committee of Experts to decide equivalence of subject which have already submitted before this Court by the State and the Committee after elaborate discussion has submitted its report and found that the petitioners are not having requiste qualification on the post of Assistant Professor for the various faculties. Once, the Committee of Experts for deciding the equivalence has already examined the case of the individual subjects, the petitioners' submission that they are eligible to be considered, cannot be considered and would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions except the petitions wherein the appointment has been stayed by this Court in view of interim order. 26. In W.P. (S) No. 3616/2021 the intervenors namely Aadesh Prajapati, in W.P. (S) No. 3606/2021 Smt. Deepika Mahobiya, Smt. Rachna Choudhary, Pankaj Kumar, Chandresh, Smt. Khushi Dewangan, Ms. Maneesha Tiger and Guleshwar Singh have moved an application to intervene on the pretext that they are having requisite qualification as prescribed in the advertisement and also cleared NET but due to interim order passed by this Court they have not been issued appointment order and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. Since they are selected candidates and have been shown at serial No. 69, 74, 76, 79, 80, 138 and 139 respectively and their interest is being adversely affected by the stay order as well as the pendency of the case before this Court therefore, their intervention application is allowed and their submissions were examined by this Court. 27. The counsel for the petitioners Mr. Shobhit Mishra in W.P. (S) No. 3898/2022, W.P. (S) No. 3906/2022, W.P. (S) No. 3976/2022 and W.P. (S) No. 3909/2022 would submit that the petitioners have been selected to the post of Assistant Professor in the subject Botany by the C.G.P.S.C. but not yet issued the appointment letter because of interim order passed by this Court, in W.P. (S) No. 3616/2021 Sixteen posts, in W.P. (S) No. 3572/2021 one post shall be kept vacant. 28. The counsel for the petitioner Mr. R.K. Gumasta, in Writ Petition (Service) No. 3469/2021 would submit that the petitioner was awarded PH.D. degree in Botany/Plant Biology of 4 years duration from foreign university and the respondent authorities ignoring the part II of the eligibility criteria in the advertisement has rejected the claim of the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner has fulfilled the criteria laid down in the rules and would pray that the petition may be allowed. 29. The Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Prateek Sharma, Mr. B.P. Singh, Mr. Sunil Sahu, Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Mr. He would further submit that the petitioner has fulfilled the criteria laid down in the rules and would pray that the petition may be allowed. 29. The Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Prateek Sharma, Mr. B.P. Singh, Mr. Sunil Sahu, Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Mr. Amit Patel while criticizing the Committee of Experts for examining equivalence in subjects would submit that the course tallied by the experts are misconceived and as per the charts produced by him with rejoinder it will be quite vivid that the petitioner is having equivalence in subject, therefore, he is fulfilling the requirements for appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that process adopted by the experts is also unique where the respondent State has supplied materials to the experts and experts have not asked for the materials which itself reveals that dominance of the respondents to guide and get result according to their choice. It has been further contended that the expert committee has taken syllabus for M.C.A. from Pt. Ravishankar University, Raipur and according to which norms of A.I.C.T.E. and C.G.D.T.E has to be followed and for post graduate degree published by the A.I.C.T.E. on 28.04.2017 and C.G.D.T.E. on 02.02.2017 are applicable. But ignoring the relevant norms of A.I.C.T.E. and C.G.D.T.E. equivalence has been decided. Therefore, they would pray for allowing the writ petitions. 30. The Counsel for the petitioner Ms. Deepali Pandey in W.P. (S) No. 3855/2021 would submit that petitioner is eligible for post of Assistant Professor in Computer Application and the committee has overlooked that post graduation degree the petitioner with specialization are related/relevant for the post of Assistant Professor in Information Technology, Computer Application and Computer Science and the Public Service Commission has no authority to decide the equivalence of the concerned degree of the candidates. The same lies with the respondent No. 3 U.G.C. and respondent No. 4 A.I.C.T.E. and would pray for quashing of the select list of Assistant Professor in Computer Application on 30.06.2021. 31. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 32. The same lies with the respondent No. 3 U.G.C. and respondent No. 4 A.I.C.T.E. and would pray for quashing of the select list of Assistant Professor in Computer Application on 30.06.2021. 31. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 32. On above factual foundation and legal submissions made by the respective counsel for the petitioners, respondents and intervenors following points emerged for determination of this Court: “Whether this Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can decide the equivalence of the subject despite the committee of experts who have already decided this issue as if an appellate authority?” 33. The learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently submitted orally and as well as their written submission that the committee has not considered the materials which are relevant for deciding the relevancy of the subject and on perverse finding, the committee has decided the relevancy. It has also been contented by the counsel for the petitioners that the committee has not collected any materials, only the materials which were supplied by the State have been taken in consideration and on the dictum of the State the equivalence has been decided, thus it deserves to be quashed and the whole selection list deserves to be quashed and would pray for allowing the petitions. 34. On the other hand counsel for the State vehemently opposed these submissions and have submitted that once the equivalence has been decided by the committee of experts and there is no material placed on record by the petitioners regarding arbitrariness and mala-fide on part of the committee then in view of well settled position of law power of this Court in the field of experts is not permissible and would pray for dismissal of the writ petitions. The State to substantiate their submissions have referred to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of J. Ranga Swamy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1990) 1 SCC 288 , Mohammed Shujat Ali vs. Union of India, (1975) 3 SCC 76 , Guru Nank Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal, (2009) 1 SCC 610 , Zahoor Ahmed Rather vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz, (2019) 2 SCC 404 , Indresh Kumar Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand, (2022) 12 SCC 42 , Cashmir Kujur vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 SC Online C.G. 1984. 35. 35. This Court has already extracted the reports of experts in foregoing paragraphs of the judgments and their opinion while deciding the equivalence. The committee has considered the syllabus of various subjects and have recorded its finding. The petitioners have nowhere submitted that the findings recorded by them are perverse or contrary to the law. Even the well settled position of law that in the field of experts, the power of this Court is very limited and cannot act as appellate authority. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Indresh Kumar Mishra (Supra) has held that there should be exclusion of judicial review over while deciding the eligibility criteria and it should be within the realm of expert body. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 15, 16, 19 and 23 has held as under: “15. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present appeals, the dispute is with respect to the posts namely, Postgraduate Trained Teacher in History and Graduate Trained Teachers in History/Civics. As per the State, so far as the G.T.T. is concerned, the requirement was a combination of History/Civics. As per the advertisement, a candidate must have the Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in the subject History. So far as the G.T.T. is concerned, the educational qualifications required was Bachelor degree in ‘History’ as well as Political Science as the requirement was for History/Civics. Therefore, for both the posts namely the Postgraduate Trained Teachers (History) and Graduate Trained Teachers (History/Civics), a candidate must have the Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in ‘History’ as a whole. 16. We have gone through the degrees/ certificates in the case of the respective writ petitioners. It appears that the respective writ petitioners have obtained the Postgraduate degrees/ Bachelor degrees, as the case may be, in one of the branches of History, namely, Indian Ancient History, Indian Ancient History and Culture, Medieval/Modern History, Indian Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology. In our view, obtaining the degree in one of the branches of History cannot be said to be obtaining the degree in History as a whole. As a History teacher, he/she has to teach in all the subjects of History, namely, Ancient History, Indian Ancient History and Culture, Medieval/Modern History, Indian Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology etc. In our view, obtaining the degree in one of the branches of History cannot be said to be obtaining the degree in History as a whole. As a History teacher, he/she has to teach in all the subjects of History, namely, Ancient History, Indian Ancient History and Culture, Medieval/Modern History, Indian Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology etc. Therefore, having studied and obtaining the degree in only one branch of History cannot be said to be having a degree in History subject as a whole, which was the requirement. All the relevant aspects have been considered and gone into in detail by the learned Single Judge meticulously. .................. 19. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even at the request of J.S.S.C. the question, whether, the degrees obtained by the respective petitioners in one branch of History can be said to be sufficient compliance as per the advertisement and can be said to be obtaining a degree in History came to be considered by the Expert Committee and the Expert Committee has opined that the degrees obtained by the respective candidates/petitioners in one branch of History cannot be said to be obtaining the degree in History as a whole and therefore they cannot be said to be having the requisite qualification as per the advertisement. .................. 23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere with the common judgments and order passed by the learned Single Judge, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The candidature/selection of the respective petitioners are rightly cancelled on the ground that they were not having the requisite qualification for the post - Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History as per the advertisement No. 21 of 2016 and 10 of 2017.” 36. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its latest judgment in Unnikrishnan C.V. vs. Union of India, 2023 SCC Online 343 has held in paragraphs 5 to 7 as under : 13.................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. 14. 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. 14. In Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another, 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. 15. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others, 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. 37. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. Basavaih vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 372 has reiterated that the Courts have very limited role to play in academic matters and held in paragraph 38 as under : 38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala-fide has been alleged against the experts constituting the selection committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realize and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters. 39. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realize and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters. 39. Considering the factual and legal foundation laid in this matter, this Court is of the view that out of bunch of petitions, W.P. (S) No. 3909/2022, W.P. (S) No. 3898/2022, W.P. (S) No. 3906/2022, W.P. (S) No. 3976/2022 and W.P. (S) No. 5865/2022, deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. 40. Rest of the writ petitions W.P. (S) No. 3722/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3606/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3572/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3616/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3714/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3469/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3766/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3788/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3862/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3785/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3789/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3940/2021, W.P. (S) No. 4026/2021, W.P. (S) No. 4173/2021, W.P. (S) No. 4157/2021, W.P. (S) No. 4026/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3433/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3959/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3952/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3946/2021, W.P. (S) No. 4096/2021 W.P. (S) No. 4004/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3968/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3962/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3960/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3859/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3842/2021, W.P. (S) No. 4153/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3901/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3845/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3966/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3872/2021, W.P. (S) No. 3884/2021 and W.P. (S) No. 3704/2021 are dismissed. 41. The respondent State is directed to issue appointment order to the petitioners Raghvendra Kumar Dewangan in W.P. (S) No. 3909/2022, Vijay Shankar Patre in W.P. (S) No. 3898/2022, Dileshwar Prasad in W.P. (S) No. 3906/2022, Ranjana Singh in W.P. (S) No. 3976/2022, Juhee Dewangan in W.P. (S) No. 5865/2022 and also invervenors Aadesh Prajapati in W.P. (S) No. 3616/2021 and Smt. Deepika Mahobiya, Smt. Rachna Choudhary, Pankaj Kumar, Chandresh, Smt. Khushi Dewangan, Ms. Maneesha Tiger and Guleshwar Singh in W.P. (S) No. 3606/2021 within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.