ORDER : Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J. 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the discriminatory action of the respondent authorities of treating the petitioner as ineligible for appointment on the post of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed), Class – III, on the ground that the petitioner does not possess requisite educational qualification. It is the case of the petitioner that the said decision is taken up by the authorities after the petitioner appeared in all stages of selection and secured more marks than the last selected candidate under the SEBC category. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner possess requisite qualification. 2. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 12.02.2009 issued by the respondent-Board for the recruitment on the post of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class – III, 680 posts, in the fixed pay of Rs.4500/- for initial five years, out of which, 184 posts are reserved for Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) candidates. The petitioner herein applied for the said post in SEBC category. The petitioner herein successfully cleared the physical examination and the elimination test conducted by the respondent – Board. Thereafter, the petitioner herein appeared in both; the main examination as well as the oral interview. The petitioner herein secured 209.5 marks however, the name of the petitioner figured in the list of ineligible candidates. The candidate having secured 193.5 marks was selected for appointment on the post in the result declared on 31.08.2010 for the said recruitment process. 2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s degree of Post Diploma in Fine Arts (in Painting, Sculpture and Applied Arts) is equivalent to the Master of Fine Arts. Reliance is placed on the certificate issued by the Dean Faculty of Fine Arts on 03.09.2010 duly produced at page 20, Annexure – E. 3. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent authority has erred in rejecting the petitioner’s candidature to the appointment to the post of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class – III. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner herein is constrained to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs : “7. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent authority has erred in rejecting the petitioner’s candidature to the appointment to the post of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class – III. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner herein is constrained to approach this Court seeking the following reliefs : “7. The petitioner respectfully prays that, on the basis of the facts and circumstances as mentioned hereinabove and which may be urged at the time of hearing, the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent authorities and may be pleased to :- (A) quash and set aside the decision of the respondent authorities dated 16.9.2010, as contained in Annexure-F to this petition, whereby, the petitioner is treated to be ineligible for appointment on the post of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class-III and further be pleased to declare and hold that the petitioners is eligible to be considered for appointment on the said post pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.2.2009, Annexure-A to this petition, and (B) further be pleased to direct the respondent Board to include the name of the petitioner in the list of the candidates who are selected for appointment on the post of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class-III, and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on the post of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class-III, and (C) award the cost of petition, and (D) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent Board to include the name of the petitioner in the list of the candidates who are selected for appointment on the post of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class-III, and (E) grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3.1 Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, placed reliance on the advertisement duly produced at Annexure – A, more particularly, Clause – 7 of the said advertisement. Mr. Vyas, learned advocate, also submitted that the petitioner herein has a degree of Post Diploma in Fine Arts, which is awarded to the petitioner on 17.01.2004. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, placed reliance on the advertisement duly produced at Annexure – A, more particularly, Clause – 7 of the said advertisement. Mr. Vyas, learned advocate, also submitted that the petitioner herein has a degree of Post Diploma in Fine Arts, which is awarded to the petitioner on 17.01.2004. It is submitted that the Masters in Fine Arts and the Post Diploma in Fine Arts (in Painting, Sculpture and Applied Arts) offered by the Faculty of Fine Arts, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, is a professional course and that the Master of Fine Arts and Post Diploma in Fine Arts (in Painting, Sculpture and Applied Arts) are considered equivalent to each other. It is submitted that the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned communication dated 16.09.2010 whereby, the respondent No.2 erroneously rejected the petitioner’s candidature on the ground that the certificate held by the petitioner herein in Post Diploma in Fine Arts (in Painting, Sculpture and Applied Arts), is not a degree. It is submitted that the certificate issued by the M.S. University of Baroda in Post Diploma in Fine Arts be treated equivalent to the degree in Master of Fine Arts. 4. Mr. Manraj Barot, learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State, placed reliance on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.2 and submitted that advertisement issued by the Office of the Director General & Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, on 14.02.2009 for filling up 680 posts of Unarmed Sub-Inspectors clearly specified at point No.14 that call letters were being issued to the candidates without verifying the facts stated by the candidates in the application form. The call letters were sent to the candidates for oral examination wherein, point No.16 clearly specified that the candidates have been called for interview on the presumption that they possess the necessary educational, physical, age and caste qualifications. If at any stage, it is found that the candidate does not possess the necessary qualification, or if the information was found to be incorrect, in such case, the candidate will become ineligible for selection. 4.1 Mr. Manraj Barot, learned AGP, submitted that similar facts were specified in advertisement given by the respondent – Board on 03.08.2010 before the oral interview; duly produced at Annexure-R-IV. The petitioner appeared in the interview on 18.08.2010. 4.1 Mr. Manraj Barot, learned AGP, submitted that similar facts were specified in advertisement given by the respondent – Board on 03.08.2010 before the oral interview; duly produced at Annexure-R-IV. The petitioner appeared in the interview on 18.08.2010. The form before the interview was filled-up by the petitioner himself wherein, the petitioner candidate had filled-up the column of degree qualification as Post Graduate Diploma in Fine Arts and therefore, he was subjected to the interview by the Board. It is submitted that during the re-examination of documents submitted by the candidates, the said degree as specified by the candidate was found to be doubtful. In view thereof, a reference was made to the Commissioner, Higher Education, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar for clarification vide office letter No.PA/B-10/PSI Bharti/2010/585, dated 27.08.2010 duly produced at Annexure-R-V. It is further submitted that the Commissioner, High Education vide letter No.DR/OP/27881, dated 27.08.2010, duly produced at Annexure -R-VI, replied that the petitioner herein possess a Post Diploma in Fine Arts from Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda; which is not equivalent to a degree. Pursuant to the said communication, the Recruitment Board held a meeting on 31.08.2010 wherein, in the minutes of meeting at point No.8, it is specified that since the petitioner candidate did not possess the requisite educational qualification, the petitioner was not selected in merit list and the candidature was rejected. 4.2 Mr. Manraj Barot, learned AGP, submitted that the representation of the petitioner was also rejected by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, vide letter No.PSI-1/Mode-1/Bharat/Kh/2586/10 dated 16.09.2010. 4.3 Mr. Manraj Barot, learned AGP appearing for the respondent – State, submitted that the scope of judicial interference in the matters of equivalence of qualifications, is limited and is left to the decision of the experts. Reliance is placed on the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404 as also, in case of Indresh Kumar Mishra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2022) 12 SCC 42 . 4.4 Placing reliance on the aforesaid, Mr. vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404 as also, in case of Indresh Kumar Mishra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2022) 12 SCC 42 . 4.4 Placing reliance on the aforesaid, Mr. Manraj Barot, learned AGP submitted that the petitioner possess the qualification of Post Diploma in Fine Arts from Maharaja Saiyajirao University, Baroda, which is not equivalent to a degree and in view thereof, the petitioner’s candidature stood rightly rejected by the respondent authority and that, the present petition be dismissed. 5. Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, in rejoinder, reiterated the submissions and also placed reliance on the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioner wherein, it is stated that the petitioner now holds a degree in Bachelor of Arts from Gujarat University in the year 2017. Reliance is also placed on the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner wherein, it is stated that, by a communication dated 16.09.1983 addressed by the Education Department to the Additional Development Commissioner for Handlooms, Ministry of Commerce, Department of Textile, Government of India, New Delhi, it is specifically stated that Diploma in Final Examination in Drawings and Painting awarded to one Shri Amrut I. Patel, is recognized by the State Government of Gujarat in Education Department as a degree or equivalent Diploma for the purpose of employment/appointment to the post/service under the State Government and its syllabus is equivalent to that of Sir J.J. School of Arts, Bombay, which is recognized by the Government of India. 5.1 Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate further submitted that the petitioner herein preferred an application under the Right to Information Act seeking necessary information from the Office of the Commissioner, Mead Day Meals and Schools, Gandhinagar. In response to the said application under the RTI, the petitioner received an information by communication dated 09.07.2010 wherein, it is stated that by Resolution of the Education Department dated 05.05.1988, Five year Diploma in Arts (Painting, Sculpture and Applied Arts) is a Government Diploma. It is further stated that the State Examination Board is also issuing Degree of Diploma. In response to the said application under the RTI, the petitioner received an information by communication dated 09.07.2010 wherein, it is stated that by Resolution of the Education Department dated 05.05.1988, Five year Diploma in Arts (Painting, Sculpture and Applied Arts) is a Government Diploma. It is further stated that the State Examination Board is also issuing Degree of Diploma. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that from the Government Resolution dated 05.05.1988, it would be evident that Five year Diploma in Arts (Painting, Sculpture and Applied Arts) are treated as equivalent for the purpose of admission to first year foundation course in the centralize admission process. 5.2 Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate also submitted that the petitioner completed Five year Diploma in Fine Arts (Applied Arts) from C.N. College of Fine Arts, Ahmedabad, which figures at serial No.1 in the list of educational institutions referred to in Schedule – C which are treated equivalent for the purpose of admission to first year foundation course in the centralize admission process. It is submitted that the said course of five years is not only equivalent in terms of the syllabus of the degree course but, also similar in terms of the numbers of years of study in degree course which follows the pattern of 10+2+3. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that after pursuing five years Government Diploma in Fine Arts (Applied Arts), the petitioner undergone Post Diploma in Applied Arts from the Faculty of Fine Arts, M.S. University, Vadodara. The said course is of a duration of 2 years, which is equivalent to any Post Graduate course which is also for a duration of 2 years. It is submitted that the petitioner being considered for an appointment to the post of Police Sub-Inspector, would also be revealed from the fact that the present petitioner is working as an Illustration Artist with Divya Bhaskar Newspaper. While working so, the petitioner prepared few sketches of the suspect of crime, one of such sketch was even published in the newspaper. 5.3 Placing reliance on the aforesaid, Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate submitted that the case of the petitioner be considered and the degree of Post Diploma in Applied Arts be considered equivalent to the Degree in Fine Arts as per the certificate issued by the Faculty of Fine Arts, M.S. University, Vadodara, duly produced at page 20. Analysis 6. 5.3 Placing reliance on the aforesaid, Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate submitted that the case of the petitioner be considered and the degree of Post Diploma in Applied Arts be considered equivalent to the Degree in Fine Arts as per the certificate issued by the Faculty of Fine Arts, M.S. University, Vadodara, duly produced at page 20. Analysis 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, following emerge: 6.1 The respondent – Board issued an advertisement dated 12.02.2009 for recruitment on the post of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class – III, for 680 posts in the fixed pay of Rs.4500/- for the initial five years. Out of the said 680 posts, 184 posts are reserved for Socially and Educationally Backward Class (SEBC) category candidates. The petitioner herein applied for the appointment on the said post in SEBC category. Certificates in support of Educational qualification of the petitioner are duly annexed at Annexure – B to the petition; i.e. (a) Diploma in Applied Art conferred by the State Examination Board in April, 2000 (b) Post Diploma in Applied Arts awarded by the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda on 17.01.2004. 6.2 Upon physical examination, an elimination test having been cleared by the petitioner herein, the petitioner appeared in main as well as the oral interview. Upon declaration of the result of the said recruitment process on 31.08.2010, the candidate in SEBC category, having secured 193.5 marks; was selected for appointment on the said post. However, petitioner though having secured 209.5 marks; was included in the list of ineligible candidates. 6.3 The petitioner herein approached the respondent – Board and inquired about the said discrepancy. Upon such knowledge, the petitioner approached the M.S. University of Baroda and obtained a certificate from the said University. The petitioner has completed 5 years Government Diploma in Applied Arts from Sheth C.N. College of Fine Arts in the year 2000. The petitioner also possesses a degree in Bachelor of Arts from Gujarat University having been conferred the same in the year 2017, duly produced at page 77 to the petition. 7. In light of the aforesaid undisputed facts, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s certificate issued by the M.S. University, Vadodara, in Post Diploma in Fine Arts, be considered equivalent to degree. Reliance is placed on the certificate issued by the M.S. University, Vadodara, duly produced at page 20. 8. 7. In light of the aforesaid undisputed facts, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s certificate issued by the M.S. University, Vadodara, in Post Diploma in Fine Arts, be considered equivalent to degree. Reliance is placed on the certificate issued by the M.S. University, Vadodara, duly produced at page 20. 8. The petitioner is governed by the Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class – III Recruitment Rules, 2008. Rule 4 of the said Rules, 2008 reads thus : “4. Eligibility for Direct Selection.- To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post mentioned in rule 2, a candidate shall,- (a) not be less than 21 years of age and not be more than 28 years of age; (b) possess a degree obtained from any of the University or an Institution established or incorporated by an Act of the Parliament or a State Legislature in India or an institution declared to be deemed as University under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956) or an equivalent qualification recognised as such by the Government; (c) possess the basic knowledge of computer application as prescribed by the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 as amended from time to time in that behalf; (d) possess the minimum requisite standards of physique as specified in Appendix A appended to these rules; and (e) possess adequate knowledge of Gujarati or Hindi or both as may be prescribed by Government from time to time in this behalf. Provided that upper age limit may be relaxed to the extent of three years in favour of a candidate who is working as a Constable, Class III or Head Constable, Class III or Assistant Sub-Inspector (Unarmed), Class III, in the Gujarat State Police Service: Provided further that preference may be given to a candidate who possesses "C" level certificate of National Cadet Corps:” 9. On perusal of the advertisement issued by the respondent No.2 – Board; duly produced at Annexure – A, page 12, it transpires that Clause – 7 of the said advertisement is also in line with the said eligibility criteria for the post of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class – III, through direct selection. On perusal of the advertisement issued by the respondent No.2 – Board; duly produced at Annexure – A, page 12, it transpires that Clause – 7 of the said advertisement is also in line with the said eligibility criteria for the post of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class – III, through direct selection. The petitioner while was eligible under Clause – 4(a), the petitioner was held to be ineligible for appointment to the aforesaid post on the ground that the Post Diploma in Fine Arts, is not equivalent to a degree, under Clause 4(b) of the aforesaid rules. 9.1 The case of the petitioner was referred to the Commissioner, Higher Education, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, for clarification with respect to the Post Diploma in Fine Arts; whether the same was a qualification equivalent to the degree as per the Rules. It was opined by the Commissioner, Higher Education, that the Post Diploma in Fine Arts from the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, is not equivalent to degree. The aforesaid communication dated 27.08.2010 was considered by the Recruitment Board in its meeting held on 31.08.2010 wherein, it is specified in the minutes of the meeting at point No.8 that since the petitioner did not possess the requisite educational qualification, he was no selected in the merit list and the petitioner’s candidature came to be rejected. 9.2 The representation of the petitioner was also considered by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, vide letter No.PSI-1/Mode-1/Bharat/Kh/2586/10, by communication dated 16.09.2010 and the same was rejected. 10. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404 . Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the said decision read thus : “26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti KK in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The decision in Jyoti KK turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily pre-supposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the state, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti KK turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the 10 id at page 177 conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench. 27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The state is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision making. The state as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti KK must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti KK must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti KK turned.” 11. It is also apposite to refer to the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Indresh Kumar Mishra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2022) 12 SCC 42 . Paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 of the said decision read thus : “20. As per the settled proposition of law, in the field of education, the Court of Law cannot act as an expert normally, therefore, whether or not a student/candidate is possessing the requisite qualification should better be left to the educational institutions, more particularly, when the Expert Committee considers the matter. 21. In the present case, the educational qualifications required has been specifically mentioned in the advertisement. There is no ambiguity and/or confusion in the advertisement providing educational qualification and the post for which the applications were invited (History/Civics). There cannot be any deviation from the educational qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. Once having found that the respective writ petitioners – appellants herein were not having the requisite qualification as per the advertisement, namely, the Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History, which was the requirement as per the advertisement and thereafter their candidature was canceled, both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have rightly refused to interfere with the same. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. 22. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. 22. As observed hereinabove in the online applications, it was stated by the respective petitioners that they are having the Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History and only at the time of verification of the documents, when the respective certificates were produced, at that time only, the authorities came to know that the respective writ petitioners have the degrees in one branch of History and not in History as a whole and therefore the show-cause notices were issued so that the respective petitioners can clarify and satisfy that they are having the requisite qualification of Postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History and after giving them the opportunity, the decision has been taken and that too after obtaining the Expert Committee’s opinion.” 12. In light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred above, and in the facts of the present case, the petitioner has placed reliance on the certificate issued by the Dean Faculty of Fine Arts, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, certifying that “the Master of Fine Arts and Post Diploma in Fine Arts (in Painting, Sculpture and Applied Arts) offered by the Faculty of Fine Arts is a two year professional course and the practical courses offered to degree and diploma courses are common hence, both this courses are considered equivalent to each other.” 12.1 The aforesaid certificate certifies equivalence between Master of Fine Arts and Post Diploma in Fine Arts. The said certificate further provides that both are practical courses that are offered to Degree and Diploma and that, the same are equivalent to each other. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner has produced on record at page 13 and 14 the Diploma Certificate and Post Diploma certificate dated April, 2000 and 17.01.2004 respectively. Undisputedly, the petitioner does not possess a degree. 13. The aforesaid certificate does not create any right in favour of the petitioner, to be considered for appointment to the advertised post. The Rules stipulate that the petitioner was required to possess a degree or an equivalent qualification recognized as such by the State Government. The Commissioner, Higher Education, as referred above, has opined that the said course Post Diploma in Fine Arts, is not equivalent to a degree and the candidature of the petitioner came to be rejected. The Rules stipulate that the petitioner was required to possess a degree or an equivalent qualification recognized as such by the State Government. The Commissioner, Higher Education, as referred above, has opined that the said course Post Diploma in Fine Arts, is not equivalent to a degree and the candidature of the petitioner came to be rejected. The other qualifications of the petitioner which are produced on record by way of rejoinder, admittedly are subsequent to the impugned order/communication dated 16.09.2010 declining to include the name of the petitioner in the list of candidates; who are selected for appointment on the post of Sahayak Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Class – III. 14. Undisputedly, the petitioner is conferred with a degree in Bachelor of Arts in the year 2017. Reliance placed by the petitioner on a certificate/communication dated 16.09.1983 duly produced at Annexure – R12, page 92, is with respect to third person wherein, the Education Department, State of Gujarat, considered Diploma in Final Examination of Drawings and Paintings. On perusal of said certificate/communication, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner cannot equate himself with the case of third party; which is with respect to a different subject, post and rules governing the subject. 15. The process of appointment is subject to judicial review mainly on the grounds of illegality, non application of mind, and/or malafide. In the facts of present case, in absence of the aforesaid grounds, this Court is inclined to accept the opinion of the experts. It is the expert body which is required to decide the question of suitability of the candidate for a particular post and it is not for the Courts to sit in appeal and interfere with such decision, the same having arrived at after following due procedure in accordance with law. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition stands dismissed.