JUDGMENT : Reportable 1. By way of instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has laid a challenge to rejection of his candidature for appointment on the post of LDC pursuant to Recruitment of 2013 and has prayed to direct respondents to accord him appointment on the post of LDC-2013 with all notional benefits. 2. In the writ petition, petitioner has pleaded that pursuant to advertisement of 2013 issued by the Panchayati Raj Department; he applied for appointment on the post of LDC in the SC category before the Zila Parishad, Sikar, petitioner was called for documents verification and according to his mark-sheet of Polytechnic diploma (Civil) of year 2010 and on the basis of his experience certificate dated 25.03.2013, petitioner scored 65.72 marks; in the provisional merit list dated 14.09.2022 for appointment on the post of LDC in Zila Parishad Sikar, the last cut off marks for candidates of SC category is shown as 59.22 marks, however, petitioner was not selected, therefore, he submitted objections before respondent No.2, then he came to know that his certificate of Polytechnic diploma (Civil) has not been treated as equivalent qualification to the Senior Secondary and as such on this count, his candidature has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondents have adopted a criteria to prepare the merit list of candidates as per Rule 273 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, as amended vide notification dated 29.01.2013. Out of 100 marks, 70% marks were fixed for Senior Secondary or its equivalent examination and 30% marks for experience acquired by candidate in MGNREGA or any other scheme of Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State. (10 marks for experience exceeding one year and maximum 30 marks for experience of 3 years or above). Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Government of Rajasthan, Education (Group 6) Department, has issued an order dated 12.10.2015 whereby any course of 3 years of Polytechnic Diploma, undertaken by a candidate from any Polytechnic College recognized by All India Council for Technical Education, has been declared to be equivalent to educational qualification of Class 12th and such order has been followed by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer vide office order dated 14.03.2016. Therefore, it has been argued that on the basis of such orders/circulars, the petitioner’s certificate of Polytechnic Diploma (Civil) should have been treated as equivalent qualification to the Senior Secondary and 70% of marks for the mark-sheet of Polytechnic Diploma (Civil), be counted to the credit of petitioner. It has further been submitted that petitioner has gained experience of 2 years 1 month and 28 days, in Jalgrahn Vikas Yojana (IWMP) at Panchayat Samiti Baap, Zila Parishad Jodhpur, for which certificate of experience dated 25.03.2013 was issued, which is duly countersigned by the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad Jodhpur, therefore, he is entitled for 20 marks for his experience. Thus petitioner secures total marks 65.72 and stands higher in merit in SC category of Zila Parishad, Sikar where the last cut off is 59.22 marks only, as such petitioner is eligible and entitled for appointment on the post of LDC on merits. It has been submitted that the action of respondents, rejecting the candidature of petitioner is arbitrary and illegal, therefore, respondents be directed to accord appointment to the petitioner with all consequential benefits. Petitioner has placed on record, his marks-sheet of Polytechnic Engineering (Civil) as Annexure-1. Certificate of experience dated 25.03.2013 as Annexure-2, orders dated 12.10.2015 and 14.03.2016 as Annexures 3 and 4. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench in case of The State of Rajasthan Vs. Lachcha Ram [(2012) 1 WLC (Raj.) 339]. Wherein, the Bachelor of Arts Preparatory (B.A.P.) Course was treated as equivalent to the Senior Secondary course of Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan for the purpose of appointment on the post of Prabodhak, placing reliance on the order of the State Government dated 09.05.2002 wherein the State Government has declared the B.A.P. Course equivalent to the Senior Secondary examination. 5. In reply to writ petition, respondents have pleaded that the requisite educational qualification for the post of LDC is Senior Secondary or its equivalent course from recognized Board as prescribed in the advertisement, but since the petitioner does not possess the qualification of Senior Secondary, therefore, his candidature has rightly been rejected. 5. In reply to writ petition, respondents have pleaded that the requisite educational qualification for the post of LDC is Senior Secondary or its equivalent course from recognized Board as prescribed in the advertisement, but since the petitioner does not possess the qualification of Senior Secondary, therefore, his candidature has rightly been rejected. In respect of circular/office order dated 12.10.2015 and 14.03.2016 issued by the Education Department and Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, respondents have contended that in said orders, it has been specifically stated that 3 years’ polytechnic certificate of diploma shall be equivalent to Class 12th certificate for the purpose of admission for higher studies. Therefore, grant of such equivalence may not be treated as grant of equivalence for the recruitment purpose. Respondents have also placed on record a copy of a communication dated 15.02.2013 (Ann. RA/1) to show that the Education Department, Government of Rajasthan had provided the list of equivalent Secondary/Senior Secondary courses and in that list, name of Board of Technical Education Rajasthan, Jodhpur, from where petitioner has undertaken course of diploma in Polytechnic (Civil) is not included. Therefore, qualification of Polytechnic Diploma (Civil), acquired by the petitioner cannot be treated as equivalent to that of Senior Secondary for the purpose of recruitment on the post of LDC. It has further been stated that objections filed by petitioner, were considered and rejected vide order dated 27.09.2022 (Ann. R/1). In the rejection order it is indicted that petitioner has not produced document of passing the Senior Secondary education and in addition, his experience certificate is also not of competent standard. 6. In respect of experience certificate of petitioner dated 25.03.2013 (Ann.2), respondents have contended that this experience certificate was not submitted by petitioner at the time of document verification, but another experience certificate dated 13.08.2015 which is not countersigned by the concerned CEO was produced, as such experience certificate dated 13.08.2015 is not admissible for grant of bonus marks. It may be noted that in respect of experience certificate dated 25.03.2013 placed on record by petitioner as Ann.2, respondents have not objected to grant bonus marks but has taken a plea that same was not produced by the petitioner before the respondents. 7. It may be noted that in respect of experience certificate dated 25.03.2013 placed on record by petitioner as Ann.2, respondents have not objected to grant bonus marks but has taken a plea that same was not produced by the petitioner before the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for respondents has countered arguments of learned counsel for petitioner on the circular/office order dated 12.10.2015 & 14.03.2016, for claiming equivalence of 3 years’ course of Polytechnic Diploma (Civil) to that of Senior Secondary in the manner that reliance on both order is misplaced and there is no circular of the State government, declaring the equivalence of the diploma in Polytechnic (Civil) to Senior Secondary education for the purpose of recruitment. He argued that in absence of any such declaration by the State Government or by the Appointing Authority, petitioner may not be treated as eligible for the post of LDC. As far as experience certificate dated 25.03.2013 filed by petitioner is concerned, since the same was not produced before respondents, bonus marks were rightly declined to the petitioner. Further learned counsel for respondents submits that once petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification of Senior Secondary, the claim of bonus marks on the basis of his experience certificate looses its significance, though he may be entitled for bonus marks on the basis of such experience certificate dated 25.03.2013 (Ann.2). Learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Mahashtra Public Service Commission Vs. Sandep Shriram Warde [ (2019) 6 SCC 362 ]. 8. Heard. Considered. 9. At the outset, it is not in dispute that petitioner had applied for appointment on the post of LDC pursuant to advertisement 2013 in the SC category and his candidature was considered in Zila Parishad Sikar. It is not in dispute that recruitment on the post of LDC 2013 is governed by the Rules of 1996 as amended vide notification dated 29.01.2013 and the merit list of candidates is prepared as per the procedure prescribed in the Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996. It is not in dispute that recruitment on the post of LDC 2013 is governed by the Rules of 1996 as amended vide notification dated 29.01.2013 and the merit list of candidates is prepared as per the procedure prescribed in the Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996. It is apposite to reproduce Rule 273 as amended here under: “2 Amendment of Rule 273-The existing second proviso to rule 273 of the Rajhastan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, shall be substituted by the following namely- “Provided also that in case of appointment to the post of Lower Division clerk, merit shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of such weightage as may be specified by the State Government for the marks obtained in Senior Secondary or its equivalent examination and such marks as may be specified by the State Government having regard to the length of experience exceeding one year acquired by persons engaged on the post of Junior Technical Assistant (JTA). Junior Engineer, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Date Entry Operator, Computer Operator with Machine, Lekha Sahayak, Lower Division Clerk, Coordinator IEC, Coordinator training, Coordinator training, Coordinator Supervision, other than through placement agency, in MGNREGA or in any other scheme of the Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj in the State.” 10. In respect of educational qualification of petitioner, it is not in dispute that petitioner has passed 3 years’ diploma course of civil engineering from the Board of Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur. The State government, vide order dated 12.10.2015 has declared that if any candidate after passing 10th class, had passed 3 years’ course from All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) from any recognized polytechnic college, he/she shall be treated equivalent to pass 12th standard for the purpose of admission for higher studies. The order of state government has been followed by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer vide order dated 14.03.2016. In both these orders, the course of polytechnic diploma from recognized college has been declared equivalent to the Senior Secondary examination. Respondents have not disputed the factum of issuance of such orders and there is nothing on record that such orders were ever withdrawn by the State Government and it is not in dispute that such orders still hold good and are in operation. Respondents, after filing reply to the writ petition has produced a list along with communication dated 15.02.2013 (Ann. Respondents, after filing reply to the writ petition has produced a list along with communication dated 15.02.2013 (Ann. RA/1), alleged to be provided by the Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan to the Panchayati Raj Department whereunder courses of other educational boards and universities which have been declared equivalent to the Secondary/Senior Secondary examination of the Rajasthan Board and has also referred the lists of subsequent years during the course of arguments. But such lists of equivalent qualification do not negate the issuance of orders dated 12.10.2015 and 14.03.2016 and merely on the basis of such lists, the equivalence extended to the diploma course of Polytechnic Engineering to the Senior Secondary examination by the State Government vide orders dated 12.10.2015 and 14.03.2016, cannot be ignored and such order cannot be brushed aside, more so when respondents have not denied issuance, existence and operation of both the office orders dated 12.10.2015 and 14.03.2016 (Ann.5 and 6). 11. This Court is of the opinion that on strength of order dated 12.10.2015 issued by the Education Department, Government of Rajasthan followed by the order dated 14.03.2016 issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, the educational qualification of polytechnic diploma (Civil), acquired and possessed by the petitioner should have been treated as equivalent to the qualification of Senior Secondary examination and when as per the advertisement as also rule, the requisite qualification for post of LDC is Senior Secondary examination or its equivalent, as prescribed under Rule 273 and in Clause 5 of the advertisement, the action of respondents to reject the candidature of petitioner on account of not possessing the qualification of Senior Secondary and not taking into account of his qualification of diploma in Polytechnic Engineering, is arbitrary and illegal. 12. 12. It may be noticed that requisite and prescribed qualification of Senior Secondary examination or its equivalent is the minimum and basic qualification for the post of LDC as indicated in Clause 5 of the advertisement and as per Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996, but simultaneously, the equivalent qualification to the Senior Secondary examination is permissible to be considered as eligible qualification in alternative to the Senior Secondary, therefore, the respondents should have considered that the alternative qualification of petitioner i.e. diploma of Polytechnic (Civil) as equivalent but respondents are demanded the qualification of Senior Secondary, as such the action of respondents to reject the candidature of petitioner due to non production of exact qualification of Senior Secondary and not considering his qualification of 3 years’ diploma of polytechnic engineering (Civil) which is an equivalent qualification to that of Senior Secondary, is not justified and cannot be countenanced and deserves to be declared as arbitrary and illegal. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the distinction between the equivalent and exact qualification vide judgement reported in Chandrakala Trivedi V.s State of Rajasthan [ (2012) 3 SCC 129 ] in paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 it observed as follows: “8. The word “equivalent” must be given a reasonable meaning. By using the expression equivalent one means the there are some degrees of flexibility or adjustment which do not lower the stated requirement. There has to be some difference between what is equivalent and what is exact. Apart from that, after a person is provisionally selected, a certain degree of reasonable expectation of the selection being continued also comes into existence. 9. Considering these aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the appellate should be considered reasonably and the provisional appointment which was given to her should not be cancelled. We order accordingly. However, we make it clear that we are passing this order taking in our view the special facts and circumstances of the case.” In view of such judgment, rejection of candidature of petitioner for not production of exact qualification of Senior Secondary stands against law and is arbitrary. 14. The judgment of Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, delivered in case of Lachacha Ram (Surpa), extends support to the case of petitioner. 14. The judgment of Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, delivered in case of Lachacha Ram (Surpa), extends support to the case of petitioner. The Division Bench affirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge in treating the qualification of Bachelor of Arts Preparatory (B.A.P.) as equivalent to that of Senior Secondary course of Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, for the purpose of appointment to the post of Prabodhak. In that case the basic requirement for appointment on the post of Prabodhak, was Senior Secondary and the RPSC has not issued circular/order to treat the B.A.P. course equivalent to Senior Secondary course. However, the Court relied upon the order of State Government dated 09.05.2002 which permitted a candidate who has passed secondary examination and undertook the B.A.P. course, for admission on the B.S.T.C. course of two years duration it means the State Government had extended equivalence of B.A.P. to that of Senior Secondary. Further the Kota Open University also extended admission to petitioner in graduation course. Thus the Court observed that when the B.A.P. course has been treated as equivalent to that of Senior Secondary for the purpose of admission in the B.S.T.C. course by the State Government vide order dated 09.05.2002 and for the purpose of admission in graduation by the Kota Open University, it is not required to go into the question whether the RPSC has recognized the qualification of 10th Pass and B.A.P. course equivalent to Senior Secondary or not. Finally the petitioner was declared eligible and qualified for appointment on the post of Prabodhak by the Single Bench and same view was affirmed by the Division Bench. This judgment renders support to the case of petitioner, because in the present case as well, the State Government and the Board of Secondary Education vide orders dated 12.10.2015 & 14.03.2016 have declared that a candidate who has passed 10th class and had passed 3 years’ course from All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) from any recognized polytechnic college, is equivalent qualification to that of Senior Secondary and eligible for admission for higher studies. The equivalence extended by the State government and Board of Secondary Education by orders dated 12.10.2015 & 14.03.2016 is not in dispute, but as a matter of fact the respondents have not considered these orders while rejecting the candidature of petitioner vide order dated 27.09.2022 (Ann. R/1). The equivalence extended by the State government and Board of Secondary Education by orders dated 12.10.2015 & 14.03.2016 is not in dispute, but as a matter of fact the respondents have not considered these orders while rejecting the candidature of petitioner vide order dated 27.09.2022 (Ann. R/1). In this view of matter, on account of acquiring qualification of diploma in polytechnic engineering by the petitioner from the Government of Rajasthan Board of Technical Education, it is held that petitioner possesses the equivalent qualification to that of Senior Secondary examination, and as such is eligible for consideration of his candidature, for appointment to the post of LDC 2013. 15. As far as experience certificate of petitioner is concerned, the online application form of petitioner filled for the post in question, is available on record and in the column of experience details, petitioner has indicated having experience of 2 years 1 month and 28 days from 19.01.2011 to 15.03.2013 and such details of experience of petitioner are similar as indicated and certified in the experience certificate dated 25.03.2013 (Ann.2) produced by the petitioner. According to petitioner he worked in the Jalgrahan Vikas Yojana of Zila Parishad, Jodhpur which is obviously a scheme of the Department of Rural and Panchayati Raj. The experience certificate dated 25.03.2013 (Ann.2) issued to petitioner is duly countersigned by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jodhpur. As such petitioner deserves for 20 marks on account of having experience of more than 2 years, on the basis of this experience certificate, which has not been disputed by respondents as well. The plea of respondents is only that this experience certificate dated 25.03.2013 was not produced by petitioner at the time of document verification but such plea is unacceptable as when the petitioner has given reference of his experience in the online application form itself, which stands fortified by this experience certificate as discussed above. It is difficult to believe that petitioner would not produce his experience certificate at the time of document verification. In respect of another experience certificate dated 13.08.2015 as referred by respondents in application dated 21.03.2023, petitioner has given due explanation that this experience certificate was not produced by petitioner in the recruitment of LDC-2013, but was submitted by petitioner while applying for another post of JTA in the year 2017 at Zila Parishad Sikar. In respect of another experience certificate dated 13.08.2015 as referred by respondents in application dated 21.03.2023, petitioner has given due explanation that this experience certificate was not produced by petitioner in the recruitment of LDC-2013, but was submitted by petitioner while applying for another post of JTA in the year 2017 at Zila Parishad Sikar. Leaving apart such factual dispute, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not in dispute that petitioner does possess experience of more than two years, as per his experience certificate dated 25.03.2013 and is entitled to obtain 20 marks for his experience. 16. In this Respect this Court finds support from a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in case of Food Corporation of India Vs. Rimjhim [ (2019) 5 SCC 793 ]. In that case, the matter came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on facts that respondent-petitioner was denied appointment on the post of Assistant Gr. II (Hindi) on the ground that she did not produce her certificate of one year experience of translation from English to Hindi and vice versa, along with application and/or even at the time of verification of documents. The Apex Court considered distinction between fact and proof i.e. essential requirement and proof/mode of proof. The Apex Court observed that it is not in dispute that respondent-petitioner was in possession of the requisite certificate of experience, for which 10 marks were required to be awarded, but the dispute is that she did not produce the certificate as proof of his eligibility for the marks. The Apex Court, placing reliance on its two previous judgments, in cases of Dolly Chhanda Vs. JEE [ (2005) 9 SCC 779 ] and Charles K. Skaria Vs. C. Mathew [ (1980) 2 SCC 752 ], affirmed the decision of the Division Bench directing the FCI to consider the case of respondent-petitioner for appointment on merits. For ready reference, the relevant portion i.e para Nos.13 & 14 of the judgment are being extracted hereunder: “13. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the FCI that a candidate must and/or ought to have produced the experience certificate along with the application is concerned, at this stage, a decision of this Court in the case of Charles K. Skaria V. Dr. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the FCI that a candidate must and/or ought to have produced the experience certificate along with the application is concerned, at this stage, a decision of this Court in the case of Charles K. Skaria V. Dr. C. Mathew (1980) 2 SCC 752 and the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda V. Chairman, JEE and others (2005) 9 SCC 779 are required to be referred to. In the case of Charles K. Skaria (supra), this Court had an occasion to consider the distinction between the essential requirements and the proof/mode of proof. In the aforesaid case, this Court had an occasion to consider the distinction between a fact and its proof. In the aforesaid case before this Court, a candidate/student was entitled to extra 10% marks for holders of a diploma and the diploma must be obtained on or before the last date of the application, not later. In the aforesaid case, a candidate secured diploma before the final date of application, but did not produce the evidence of diploma along with the application. Therefore, he was not allowed extra 10% marks and therefore denied the admission. Dealing with such a situation, this Court observed and held that what was essential requirement was that a candidate must have obtained the diploma on or before the last date of application but not later, and that is the primary requirement and to submit the proof that the diploma is obtained on or before a particular date as per the essential requirement is secondary. This Court specifically observed and held that “What is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification”. This Court specifically observed and held that “To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity”. This Court further observed and held that “20…….To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense. This Court specifically observed and held that “To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity”. This Court further observed and held that “20…….To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense. But if it is unshakeably shown that the qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, to invalidate the merit factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus, but still above board, is to make procedure not the handmaid but the mistress and form not as subservient to substance but as superior to the essence. While observing and holding so, in paras 20 & 24, this Court observed and held as under: “20. There is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in adding 10 marks for holders of a diploma. But to earn these extra 10 marks, the diploma must be obtained at least on or before the last date for application, not later. Proof of having obtained a diploma is different from the factum of having got it. Has the candidate, in fact, secured a diploma before the final date of application for admission to the degree course? That is the primary question. It is prudent to produce evidence of the diploma along with the application, but that is secondary. Relaxation of the date on the first is illegal, not so on the second. Academic excellence, through a diploma for which extra mark is granted, cannot be denuded because proof is produced only later, yet before the date of actual selection. The emphasis is on the diploma; the proof thereof subserves the factum of possession of the diploma and is not an independent factor..... Mode of proof is geared to the goal of the qualification in question. It is subversive of sound interpretation and realistic decoding of the prescription to telescope the two and make both mandatory in point of time. What is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense. What is essential is the possession of a diploma before the given date; what is ancillary is the safe mode of proof of the qualification. To confuse between a fact and its proof is blurred perspicacity. To make mandatory the date of acquiring the additional qualification before the last date for application makes sense. But if it is unshakeably shown that the qualification has been acquired before the relevant date, as is the case here, to invalidate this merit factor because proof, though indubitable, was adduced a few days later but before the selection or in a manner not mentioned in the prospectus, but still aboveboard, is to make procedure not the handmaid but the mistress and form not as subservient to substance but as superior to the essence. 24. It is notorious that this formalistic, ritualistic, approach is unrealistic and is unwittingly traumatic, unjust and subversive of the purpose of the exercise. This way of viewing problems dehumanises the administrative, judicial and even legislative processes in the wider perspective of law for man and not man for law. Much of hardship and harassment in administration flows from overemphasis on the external rather than the essential. We think the government and the selection committee rightly treated as directory (not mandatory) the mode of proving the holding of diplomas and as mandatory the actual possession of the diploma. In actual life, we know how exasperatingly dilatory it is to get copies of degrees, decrees and deeds, not to speak of other authenticated documents like marklists from universities, why, even bail orders from courts and Government Orders from public offices. This frustrating delay was bypassed by the State Government in the present case by two steps. Government informed the selection committee that even if they got proof of marks only after the last date for applications but before the date for selections they could be taken note of and secondly the Registrars of the Universities informed officially which of the candidates had passed in the diploma course. The selection committee did not violate any mandatory rule nor act arbitrarily by accepting and acting upon these steps. Had there been anything dubious, shady or unfair about the procedure or any mala fide move in the official exercises we would never have tolerated deviations. But a prospectus is not scripture and common sense is not inimical to interpreting and applying the guidelines therein. Had there been anything dubious, shady or unfair about the procedure or any mala fide move in the official exercises we would never have tolerated deviations. But a prospectus is not scripture and common sense is not inimical to interpreting and applying the guidelines therein. Once this position is plain the addition of special marks was basic justice to proficiency measured by marks.” A similar view is taken by this Court subsequently in the case of Dolly Chhanda (supra), relying upon the aforesaid decision of this Court in the case of Charles K. Skaria (supra). 14. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two cases to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the Division Bench has rightly set aside the action of the FCI in rejecting the case of the original writ petitioner and has rightly directed the FCI to consider the case of the original writ petitioner for appointment on merits, if all other conditions stand satisfied.” 17. As far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of Maharashtra Public Service Commission (Supra) referred by the counsel for respondents that judgment expounds a proposition of law that it is within the domain and jurisdiction of the appointing authority to decide the essential qualification for appointment on a public post and the Court may not lay down condition and eligibility nor can dwell into the issue with regard to desirable qualification. It was also held that question of equivalence also fall outside the domain of judicial review. There is no quarrel about the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment, but as far as facts of the present case are concerned, in the Rule 273 as also in the advertisement itself, the prescribed requisite qualification is Senior Secondary or its equivalent and further the Government of Rajasthan and Board of Secondary Education by issuing orders dated 12.10.2015 & 14.03.2016 respectively have granted equivalence to diploma in polytechnic engineering with Senior Secondary examination, therefore, this Court is not required to exercise its power of judicial review to dwell into the question determining the desirable qualification or to declare the diploma of polytechnic engineering equivalent to the Senior Secondary examination, but whatever material has been placed on record, the Court has adjudicated the issue within its judicial imprimatur. 18. 18. The outcome of discussions made hereinabove is that the candidature of petitioner on the basis of his qualification of polytechnic diploma (civil) issued by the Rajasthan Board of Technical Education, Jodhpur, and on the basis of his experience certificate dated 25.03.2013, is entitled to be considered on merit for appointment on the post of LDC-2013. According to the petitioner, as per the procedure for preparing merit list, petitioner scores 65.72 marks whereas in the provisional merit list of SC category for Zila Parishad, Sikar, the last cut off marks is 59.22, therefore, petitioner stands higher in merit and thus is entitled for the appointment. 19. As a result, the writ petition succeeds and the respondents are hereby directed to consider the candidature of petitioner on merits in SC category and by taking into consideration his marks obtained in mark-sheet of year 2010 for diploma of Polytechnic (Civil) issued by Government of Rajasthan, Board of Technical Education, Rajasthan (Ann.1) and the experience certificate dated 25.03.2013 (Ann.2) of petitioner, and after adjudging his suitability on merits, shall accord appointment to the petitioner on the post of LDC, pursuant to recruitment of 2013. The exercise be done within a period of one month. No costs. 20. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.