ORDER : (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) 1. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed this writ petition calling in question legality, validity and correctness of judgment & order dated 19-10-2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting: Bilaspur in Original Application No.203/00018/2022, by which the learned Tribunal has allowed the original application filed by the respondent herein directing the petitioner herein to appoint the applicant/respondent on the post of Junior Engineer (AC&R) in AIIMS, Raipur finding that the respondent has essential qualification for the said post of Junior Engineer (AC&R). 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: - 3. The petitioner – All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Raipur issued vacancy notice dated 25-1-2014 for four posts of Junior Engineer (AC&R) and essential qualification for the said post was 3-Years Diploma in Mechanical Engineering plus a course in Refrigeration & Air Conditioning from a recognised Polytechnic/Institute in which the respondent also participated without demur or protest or without challenge to the vacancy notification and he was allowed to appear in the written test wherein he secured 132 marks out of 196 and thereafter, ten candidates including the respondent herein were called for document verification, but in the document verification, the respondent was found not having any certificate in the specialised course in Refrigeration & Air Conditioning from any recognised Polytechnic/Institute, therefore, he was not selected/appointed leading to filing of original application after withdrawing writ petition from the High Court in which the sole ground of the respondent was, he had done 4-Years of Bachelor of Engineering degree programme in Mechanical Engineering and he had studied a dedicated specialised course of Refrigeration & Air Conditioning in 8th Semester of 6 months duration which is equivalent to the essential qualification prescribed for the post i.e. 3-Years Diploma in Mechanical Engineering plus a course in Refrigeration & Air Conditioning from a recognised Polytechnic/ Institute, therefore, he is eligible to be selected and he has wrongly been screened from the said post and accordingly, he is entitled for selection and appointment on the post of Junior Engineer (AC&R) which was finally allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 19-10-2023. 4. 4. The petitioner AIIMS has filed return before the Central Administrative Tribunal stating inter alia that the respondent did not have the essential qualification for the post of Junior Engineer (AC&R) as the prescribed qualification was 3-Years Diploma in Mechanical Engineering plus a course in Refrigeration & Air Conditioning from a recognised Polytechnic/Institute and he had studied 4 years of Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical which cannot be held to be the essential qualification for the post of Junior Engineer (AC&R), therefore, the respondent was not having the essential qualification for the said post of Junior Engineer (AC&R) and power, authority and jurisdiction to assess the qualification is vested with the employer and the Tribunal has assumed the role of employer and wrongly came to a conclusion that the respondent studied 4 years of Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical which includes specialised course of Refrigeration & Air Conditioning, as such, the respondent did not have the essential qualification for the post of Junior Engineer (AC&R). 5. The learned Tribunal by its impugned order, allowed the original application holding that the respondent is having more satisfactory qualification than what was asked for in the notification for the said post, as the respondent was admittedly having the certificate of 4 years of Bachelor of Engineering degree in Mechanical which is higher qualification as compared to the essential qualification as sought by the petitioner for the post of Junior Engineer (AC&R) i.e. 3-Years Diploma in Mechanical Engineering plus a course in Refrigeration & Air Conditioning from a recognised Polytechnic/Institute and finally, held that since the respondent is possessing much higher qualification then the required qualification, he is eligible to be appointed and consequently, proceeded to direct for his appointment on the post of Junior Engineer (AC&R) in AIIMS, Raipur. 6. Mr. B.P. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that essential qualification for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer (AC&R) is 3-Years Diploma in Mechanical Engineering plus a course in Refrigeration & Air Conditioning from a recognised Polytechnic/Institute which the respondent herein did not have and he is having only a 4-Years of Bachelor of Engineering degree programme in Mechanical Engineering which, according to the respondent, includes specialised course of Refrigeration & Air Conditioning which could not be an essential qualification in terms of the vacancy notification dated 25-1-2014. He would further submit that the Tribunal has assumed the role of an employer and proceeded to assess the qualification to be higher qualification than the prescribed one which is not the province of the Tribunal, as the jurisdiction to make selection as per law is vested in the Selection Committee as the Selection Committee members have got the expertise in the matter and it is not open for the courts generally to interfere in such matter. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank and another v. Anit Kumar Das, (2021) 12 SCC 80 to buttress his submission that qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the need and interest of an institution and the courts are not equipped to assess expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7. The respondent in person would however, support the order passed by the Tribunal directing the petitioner AIIMS to appoint him on the post of Junior Engineer (AC&R) stating that he is having higher qualification than the prescribed qualification and he had undergone the course in Air Conditioning & Refrigeration while undergoing the graduate course in Mechanical Engineering, therefore, the Tribunal is absolutely justified in holding that he has the essential qualification for the post of Junior Engineer (AC&R), as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record carefully and thoroughly as well. 9. It is not in dispute that for the post of Junior Engineer (AC&R) notified by AIIMS, Raipur, on 25-1-2014, essential qualification was 3-Years Diploma in Mechanical Engineering plus a course in Refrigeration & Air Conditioning from a recognised Polytechnic/Institute. It is also not in dispute that the respondent had undergone Bachelor of Engineering course in Mechanical from Pt. 9. It is not in dispute that for the post of Junior Engineer (AC&R) notified by AIIMS, Raipur, on 25-1-2014, essential qualification was 3-Years Diploma in Mechanical Engineering plus a course in Refrigeration & Air Conditioning from a recognised Polytechnic/Institute. It is also not in dispute that the respondent had undergone Bachelor of Engineering course in Mechanical from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur i.e. 4-Years B.E. course in Mechanical Engineering and he did not have the second part of qualification i.e. course in Refrigeration & Air Conditioning from a recognised Polytechnic/Institute, and he claimed that he has the essential qualification of B.E. in Mechanical Engineering i.e. 4-Years degree course which includes specialised course of Refrigeration & Air Conditioning of 6 months duration in 8th Semester, therefore, he has the essential qualification for the said post, though he did not produce any certificate for the said specialised course in Refrigeration & Air Conditioning from recognised Polytechnic/Institute which was the main reason for his non-selection. In these broad facts, we proceed to consider the case of the respondent as the Tribunal has held that the respondent’s holding and possessing B.E. Mechanical would include the course of Refrigeration & Air Conditioning from a recognised Polytechnic/Institute. 10. First of all, AIIMS, Raipur – the petitioner herein, is a hospital of great repute situate at Raipur and for that institution, four posts of Junior Engineer (AC&R) were advertised. The vacancy notification for the said post has a specific purpose and that is for the petitioner’s hospital & medical college to maintain the system of Refrigeration & Air Conditioning which is absolutely necessary for the smooth functioning of hospital and medical college and considering that purpose, qualification for the said post was prescribed as 3-Years Diploma in Mechanical Engineering plus a course in Refrigeration & Air Conditioning from a recognised Polytechnic/Institute which the petitioner got advertised, as it is well settled law that the prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy and the State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. In Anit Kumar Das’s case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that it is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications and similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. It was further held by their Lordships that whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. Their Lordships pertinently observed in paragraph 17.3 of the report as under: - “17.3. Thus, as held by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the courts to consider and assess. A greater latitude is permitted by the courts for the employer to prescribe qualifications for any post. There is a rationale behind it. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the need and interest of an institution or an industry or an establishment as the case may be. The courts are not fit instruments to assess expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications. However, at the same time, the employer cannot act arbitrarily or fancifully in prescribing qualifications for posts. In the present case, prescribing the eligibility criteria/educational qualification that a graduate candidate shall not be eligible and the candidate must have passed 12th standard is justified and as observed hereinabove, it is a conscious decision taken by the Bank which is in force since 2008. Therefore, the High Court has clearly erred in directing the appellant Bank to allow the respondent-original writ petitioner to discharge his duties as a Peon, though he as such was not eligible as per the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement.” 11. Therefore, the High Court has clearly erred in directing the appellant Bank to allow the respondent-original writ petitioner to discharge his duties as a Peon, though he as such was not eligible as per the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement.” 11. The principle of law laid down in Anit Kumar Das’s case (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case as keeping in view the need and interest of an institution like AIIMS, Raipur, which is an institution of great repute, qualification for the post of Junior Engineer (AC&R) has been prescribed, and question of equivalence has to be decided by the employer and Courts/Tribunals are not equipped to consider and hold that two qualifications, one prescribed by the recruiting authority and another possessed by the candidate, are equivalent. 12. Apart from this, it is quite vivid from the record that the respondent has participated in the selection process without any demur or protest and once he was not selected on account of not having essential qualification in terms of vacancy notification dated 25-1-2014, he has laid a claim that his qualification is higher than the prescribed qualification. 13. In the matter of Union of India and others v. S. Vinodh Kumar and others, (2007) 8 SCC 100 , the Supreme Court has held that once candidate taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure, is not entitled to question the same. 14. Similarly, in the matter of Ramesh Chandra Shah and others v. Anil Joshi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309 , the Supreme Court has held that person who consciously takes part in selection process cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome. 15. In the matter of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 273 , it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that once the authorities concerned are satisfied with the eligibility qualifications of the person concerned, it is not for the Tribunal to embark upon an investigation of its own to ascertain the qualifications of the said person. 16. 16. In the matter of Maharashtra Public Service Commission Through its Secretary v. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others, (2019) 6 SCC 362 , the Supreme Court has held that questions of equivalence also fall outside domain of judicial review, and observed in paragraph 9 as under: - “9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.” 17. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that the respondent did not have the essential qualification in terms of the advertisement dated 25-1-2014, as he did not have the additional course in Refrigeration & Air Conditioning from recognised Polytechnic/Institute and the question of equivalence is the domain of the employer to assess, it is not for the Tribunal or the Court to decide whether a particular qualification should or should not be acceptable as equivalent. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in holding that the respondent is having higher qualification than the prescribed qualification and thus, legally erred in directing the petitioner for giving appointment to the respondent by granting the original application. 18. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in holding that the respondent is having higher qualification than the prescribed qualification and thus, legally erred in directing the petitioner for giving appointment to the respondent by granting the original application. 18. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19-10-2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting: Bilaspur in O.A.No.203/00018/2022 {Shekhar Sahu v. Director All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Raipur} is set aside and the original application stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).