ORDER : 1........ (a) Case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement dated 23/12/2015 she applied for the post of Lecturer in Costume Design and Dress Making in the Department of Technical Education. The petitioner was holding the degree of Graduate and her percentage of marks was 65.27%, as is evident from Annexure P/1. In the said recruitment process, the petitioner got selected, which was also cleared by the experts of the P.S.C. Thereafter, the letter of appointment was issued in favour of the petitioner along with other selected candidates on 14/06/2016 (Annexure P/8). When she went to join the place of posting she was not allowed by the respondent No. 3 on the ground that the petitioner do not hold the First Division, as in the mark sheet (Annexure P/1) the result has been shown as second division, whereas for the subject post, the First Division is required. (b) According to the petitioner after passing out the Diploma the Ordinance of the University whereby the First and Second Division underwent a change vide Annexure P/10 known as Ordinance ‘Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal’ wherein the Rules for award of Division and Diploma was changed. (c) Further submission of the petitioner is that as per Clause 9.2 (b) of the Ordinance, the criteria of grading of marks was changed and a candidate securing 65% marks or more in aggregate but less than 75% would be placed in First Division. Thereby the Division was upgraded irrespective of the percentage on merit. Next submission of the petitioner is that while she underwent the interview it was not objected by the P.S.C. the expert body. Schedule III of the Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Teaching Cadre-Polytechnic) (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 2014 (henceforth ‘the Rules, 2014’) provides the educational qualification and experience for the post of Costume Designing and Dress Making at S. No. 8. 2. According to the Rules, 2014, it is manifest that the prescribed educational qualification for selection in Costume Designing and Dress Making is First Class Diploma in Costume Design and Dress Making of not less than two years duration along with First Class Bachelor’s Degree in any subject from any recognized University/Institute. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner obtained the Diploma from a recognized Institute as per Annexure P/1. 3. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner obtained the Diploma from a recognized Institute as per Annexure P/1. 3. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the educational qualification has not been defined in Schedule III of the Rules, 2014, therefore, the Ordinance which was amended by the University only on obtaining certain marks, the Division would apply and would cover the field and expert’s opinion would prevail upon the decision of the Principal. He would submit that this Court by order dated 10/08/2016 passed an interim order and directed to keep one post vacant and shall not be filled up by any other candidate. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the P.S.C. per contra, would submit that the petitioner herself sought for upgradation i.e. for correction whereby it would lead to show that she was in know of the fact that she was not entitled for the post, as the First Division is required whereas from the mark-sheet Annexure P/1 it is reflected that the petitioner obtained the Second Division and, as such, the Principal has rightly not allowed the petitioner to join the post. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 6. It would be apt to quote the qualification, which was prescribed in the advertisement, for ready reference: in Øekad ¼9½ dkWLV;we fMtkbfuax o Mªsl esfdax fo”k; ds fy,% fdlh ekU;rk ÁkIr fo’ofo|ky;@laLFkk ls oL= rFkk ifj/kku fuekZ.k esa ÁFke Js.kh esa LukrdksRrj mikf/k ¼,eŒ,pŒ,lŒlhŒ½ ;k fdlh ekU;rk ÁkIr fo’ofo|ky;@laLFkk ls fdlh Hkh fo”k; esa ÁFke Js.kh esa Lukrd mikf/k rFkk os’kHkw”kk vfHkdYiu rFkk ifj/kku fuekZ.k esa ÁFke Js.kh esa U;wure nks o”khZ; i=ksikf/kA uksV% dksbZ U;wure vuqHko vko’;d ughaA 7. Holding 65.27% marks in Diploma by the petitioner is not in dispute. The question falls for consideration is as to whether that should be considered to be First Division when by the Ordinance the University amended to hold that a candidate securing 65% marks or more in aggregate but less than 75% would be placed in First Division. Holding 65.27% marks in Diploma by the petitioner is not in dispute. The question falls for consideration is as to whether that should be considered to be First Division when by the Ordinance the University amended to hold that a candidate securing 65% marks or more in aggregate but less than 75% would be placed in First Division. Clause 9.0 of the Ordinance is quoted below for ready reference: 9.0 RULES FOR AWARD OF DIVISION AND DIPLOMA 9.1 To be eligible for the award of Diploma in any programme, a candidate should earn the requisite number of credits prescribed in the scheme of examination through successful completion of the course including credits earned at the time of admission to the programme. 9.2 A candidate shall be declared to be eligible for the award of Diploma in First Division Honours, First Division, Second Division or pass Division depending on the percentage of combined aggregate marks obtained by the candidate in Applied Technology and Diversified category of courses of study. The percentage determining the Division/class will be as under: (a) A candidate securing 75% marks or above in aggregate will be awarded FIRST DIVISION HONOURS. (b) A candidate securing 65% marks or more in aggregate but less than 75% will be placed in FIRST DIVISION. (c) A candidate securing 50% marks or more in aggregate but less than 65% marks will be placed in SECOND DIVISION. (d) Candidates securing less than 50% marks in aggregate but secures the minimum pass marks in each theory, practical subjects and Industrial training will be placed in PASS DIVISION. 9.3 Concerned Polytechnic College/institution may issue a provisional statement of marks on demand to such students who have cleared all the courses specified for that programme, till such time University declares its result or issues original mark sheet of that Programme or College/institute. 9.4 In case any discrepancy in respect of any candidate is noticed regarding his/her eligibility or otherwise even after declaration of result, University reserves the right to amend or cancel the result of such candidate. 8. Perusal of the Ordinance would show that it has not touched upon the merit of the candidate. By simply making a change in the criteria 65% marks was considered to be in the bracket of First Division. 9. 8. Perusal of the Ordinance would show that it has not touched upon the merit of the candidate. By simply making a change in the criteria 65% marks was considered to be in the bracket of First Division. 9. It is obvious that the merit of the candidate remains the same who obtained a certain percentage and it is only the Division has made the different compartment in 2005. By the said Ordinance, it has been mentioned that the candidate who obtained 65% marks or more but less than 75% would be considered as First Division and that benefit of the Ordinance cannot be denied to the petitioner. 10. It is a well settled proposition of law that the equivalence of educational qualification has to be decided by the appointing authority, the Public Service Commission being the appointing authority has recommended for appointment. While deciding on equivalence, the appointing authority is free to consider functional equivalence and not be limited to formal equivalence only. The rules governing the recruitment is silent on this aspect as to what will be regarded as the first division. 11. In addition to this the fact remains that the petitioner has obtained 65.27% marks which was later recognized by the University as the First Division. The very object of determining a benchmark of academic is to ascertain the Intelligence Quotient of the candidate while giving any person appointment to any post. 12. The ambition expressed to mark the Division would not decide the intelligence of a candidate. The shared efforts to hold the merit only on the basis of Division alone will make a drill holes into claims of intelligence /merit. If a mark of 65.27% which was a Second Division in previous year is made and upgraded to First Division, there being no syllabus changed, the merit of a candidate cannot be held to be as non qualified only on the basis of fact that in previous year 65% percentile would be within the frame of second division. 13. If a mark of 65.27% which was a Second Division in previous year is made and upgraded to First Division, there being no syllabus changed, the merit of a candidate cannot be held to be as non qualified only on the basis of fact that in previous year 65% percentile would be within the frame of second division. 13. Schedule III of the Rules, 2014 provides the educational qualification and experience for the post of Costume Designing and Dress Making at S. No. 8, which is quoted below: SCHEDULE-III (See Rule 8) S. No. Name of Posts included in service Minimum Age limit Maximum Age limit Prescribed educational qualification Remark (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 8 Costume Designing and Dress Making 21 years 30 Years First Class Master’s degree (M.H. Sc.) in Textile and Clothing from a recognized University/Institute. OR First Class Diploma in Costume Design and Dress Making of not less than two years duration along with first class Bachelor’s Degree in any subject from a recognized University/Institute. Note: No minimum Experience. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 14. The aforesaid provision speaks about the First Division but what are the marks for the First Division is not being decided. Thus, the issue will fall back to the Ordinance of 2005 to hold that the person who obtained 65% marks shall also be considered as a candidate of First Division. It is also obvious that the University was well aware of the fact that the benefit to be extended to the candidates who are in hold of 65% marks. 15. In the case at hand, the advertisement was issued in the year 2015 and the time the Ordinance was passed in the year 2005, whereby the up gradation of division was in existence. The petitioner who holds 65.27% marks would be within the bracket of First Division though at the relevant time when she passed out it was in the bracket of Second Division as the percentile marks would be the nucleus of controversy. The petitioner having selected for the post, she cannot be deprived to join the service to create a headwind. The petitioner who holds 65.27% marks would be within the bracket of First Division though at the relevant time when she passed out it was in the bracket of Second Division as the percentile marks would be the nucleus of controversy. The petitioner having selected for the post, she cannot be deprived to join the service to create a headwind. Albeit, in the mark sheet Annexure P/1 Second Division has been shown, the benefit of Ordinance would hold the sway in favour of the petitioner by treating her to be a candidate of First Division, when the advertisement to the subject post was issued in the year 2015. 16. As per the interim order dated 10/08/2016 passed by this Court, one post has already been kept vacant, therefore, the petitioner shall be allowed to join on the said vacant post at an appropriate place. 17. In the result, the petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.