JUDGMENT : SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. The instant petition is filed with the following prayers:- “i) issue appropriate writ, order ?? direction to the Respondent no.1-RPSC to consider the Petitioner for appointment on the post of ATP pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.10.2022; ii) issue appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent no.1-RPSC to consider the educational qualification of the Petitioner i.e. M.Tech. (Transportation Engineering) to be equivalent to M.Tech. (Traffic & Transportation Planning), as determined by Rajasthan Technical University, Kota; iii) issue appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent no.1 -RPSC to publish the final result of the Petitioner pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.10.2022 and counselling convened on 21.12.2023; iv) 'Any other appropriate direction or order which is deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court may also be issued/passed in favour of the humble Petitioner and in the interest of justice.” 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sandeep Pathak, submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved of the arbitrary and unjust action of the respondents in not extending appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Town Planner (ATP) despite the petitioner succeeding in the written examination conducted by the respondent-RPSC, and holding all the requisite educational qualifications in addition to having already participated in the counselling convened by the RPSC on the scheduled date. In this regard, learned counsel stressed that the respondents are ignoring the specific and clear educational qualifications encapsulated in the subject advertisement dated 04.10.2022, which are duly met by the petitioner and as a result of such ignorance, the petitioner is being deprived of the benefit of appointment on the post of ATP, in an arbitrary manner. 3. In order to highlight the purported illegality and/or arbitrariness, learned counsel submitted that the respondents are ignoring the specific educational qualifications mentioned in the advertisement dated 04.10.2022, according to which the degree of M.Tech. (Traffic and Transportation Planning) or its equivalent degree is valid for consideration for appointment on the post of Assistant Town Planner. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that covering all squares, the degree held by the petitioner i.e. M.Tech. (Transportation Engineering) is equivalent to M.Tech. (Traffic and Transportation Planning). (Traffic and Transportation Planning) or its equivalent degree is valid for consideration for appointment on the post of Assistant Town Planner. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that covering all squares, the degree held by the petitioner i.e. M.Tech. (Transportation Engineering) is equivalent to M.Tech. (Traffic and Transportation Planning). Moreover, the said equivalence between the two stated degrees is also ascertained and thereafter confirmed by the highest body in technical education i.e. All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter, AICTE) vide clarification dated 23.10.2020. It was also submitted that the AICTE has clarified that mere nomenclature ought not to be analyzed for assessing the equivalence of degrees, but also the syllabi and course materials in the said degrees. In any case, the AICTE vide clarification dated 23.10.2020 concluded that the body best equipped to ascertain equivalence, shall be the University itself or the State. Lastly, learned counsel apprised the Court of the fact that even the University from where the petitioner obtained his degree i.e. Rajasthan Technical University, Kota has ascertained the rightful equivalency between the two degrees vide letter dated 22.12.2023. 4. Therefore, in light of the above, Mr. Pathak urged that the respondents ought to have acknowledged the equivalence of degrees and granted appointment to the petitioner, looking to his merit and eligibility for the concerned post of Assistant Town Planner. Consequently, it was prayed that the instant petition be allowed in terms of the prayers so advanced. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State, Mr. Sandeep Taneja AAG, assisted by the counsel for the respondent-RPSC, submitted that the eligibility criterion encapsulated within the advertisement dated 04.10.2022 is abundantly clear, leaving no room for interpretation/doubt. Moreover, even if one were to momentarily concede to the proposed argument of drawing equivalency, then as per the settled position of the law as enunciated in (2019) 6 SCC 362 titled as The Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Ors. vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and Ors. and (2019) 2 SCC 404 titled as Zahoor Ahmad and Ors. vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Ors., the appropriate authority and competency to ascertain equivalency rests upon the shoulders of the appointing authority/employer. Therefore, it was argued that the scope of judicial interference in the arena of drawing inference qua equivalence for appointment on administrative posts, is miniscule. 6. Mr. and (2019) 2 SCC 404 titled as Zahoor Ahmad and Ors. vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Ors., the appropriate authority and competency to ascertain equivalency rests upon the shoulders of the appointing authority/employer. Therefore, it was argued that the scope of judicial interference in the arena of drawing inference qua equivalence for appointment on administrative posts, is miniscule. 6. Mr. Taneja further contended that the reliance placed upon the notification/clarification dated 23.10.2020, as issued by the AICTE, shall have no bearing in the facts and circumstances before the Court, as the said clarification was not open-ended and rather, specifically pertained to the appointment of teaching staff. Furthermore, learned counsel argued that the concerned Rajasthan Technical University, Kota had no competence and authority to draw and/or ascertain equivalency of degrees, for the purpose of appointment on a public post. The letter dated 22.12.2023, issued by the University, is not binding upon the respondents and as a consequence of which, the same could not be treated to be conclusive for the purpose of securing employment sans eligibility as spelled out vide advertisement dated 04.10.2022. Moreover, learned counsel also submitted that in order to conclusively ascertain the aspect of eligibility, the respondents constituted an expert committee for analyzing the petitioner’s claim and found the petitioner ineligible, on account of not having the requisite educational qualification in terms of the degree so submitted before the RPSC. 7. In light of the above, learned counsel conclusively argued that when the language of the advertisement is abundantly clear as per the wisdom of the employer and subsequently the expert committee so constituted, then in such a case, judicial interference ought to be slow and sparingly permissible. As a result, it was prayed that the instant petition be dismissed. 8. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides, scanned the record of the petition and perused through the judgments cited at Bar. 9. Concisely noted, the factual matrix enveloping the lis before this Court, dictates as under:- 9.1 That the respondent no.1-RPSC issued advertisement dated 04.10.2022 notifying 43 posts of Assistant Town Planner, for being appointed with the respondent no.2 i.e. Urban Planning Department, Government of Rajasthan, as per the Rajasthan Urban Planning Service Rules, 1966. 9.2 That the petitioner is a General-Male-EWS Candidate, who applied for the advertised post of Assistant Town Planner in pursuance of the said advertisement dated 04.10.2022. 9.2 That the petitioner is a General-Male-EWS Candidate, who applied for the advertised post of Assistant Town Planner in pursuance of the said advertisement dated 04.10.2022. Resultantly, the petitioner’s admit card was issued and the date of examination was scheduled as 16.06.2023. 9.3 That the petitioner participated in the written examination and the result was declared on 07.12.2023 and thereafter, as per the prescribed procedure, the selected candidates, including the petitioner, were required to undertake counselling. 9.4 That the respondent no.1-RPSC intimated the petitioner regarding the counselling scheduled on 21.12.2023. 9.5 That the petitioner participated in the counselling process and submitted the requisite documents required by the respondent no.1-RPSC. 10. The cause and controversy in the instant matter arose when pursuant to having participated in the counselling process, the final result of the petitioner was not declared by the respondent no.1-RPSC, on the pretext that the educational qualification possessed by the petitioner i.e. M.Tech. (Transportation Engineering) did not meet out the criterion spelled out vide subject advertisement dated 04.10.2022, which required the candidates to possess a corresponding degree in M.Tech. (Traffic and Transportation Planning). Resultantly, being aggrieved of the purported illegality committed by the respondents in ousting the petitioner’s candidature, the latter has preferred the instant petition claiming equivalency in the two degrees mentioned above. 11. Upon an assiduous scrutiny of the record before this Court, the following germane stipulations have emerged, having a direct bearing on the adjudication of the lis before this Court, namely:- 11.1 That the requisite educational qualification(s), as spelled out vide advertisement dated 04.10.2022, read as under:- “(i) “Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering (Civil)/Architecture/Planning with Post Graduate Degree in Urban/City/Regional Planning/Traffic & Transportation Planning or M.Tech. in Planning or M.Plan (Urban/Regional/Traffic & Transport/Environment or equivalent; (ii) Bachelor’s Degree in Planning/Architecture from a recognised Institute/University established by law in India with 2 years experience in the field of Town Planning.” 11.2 That the educational qualification(s) clause, as reproduced herein-above, provides for certain expressly spelled out degrees, co-joint with the term ‘equivalent’ in alternative, meaning thereby that any other degree, which is synonymous in spheres such as value, syllabi and merit, may also be accepted by the respondent no.1-RPSC for the purpose of selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Town Planner. 11.3 That pursuant to the counselling, the petitioner had approached the concerned university which had issued the petitioners degree in M.Tech. 11.3 That pursuant to the counselling, the petitioner had approached the concerned university which had issued the petitioners degree in M.Tech. (Transportation Engineering) i.e. Rajasthan Technical University-Kota, seeking clarification on the issue of equivalence of the said degree with M.Tech. (Traffic and Transportation Planning). Thereafter, in response, after having considered the overall facts, syllabus of the two degree courses, curriculum etc, the Rajasthan Technical University vide letter/certificate dated 22.12.2023 clarified that the two aforementioned degrees shall be equivalent for all intents and purposes. The said letter/certificate is marked as Annexure-10. 12. On the aspect of equivalence, learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that for qualifications pertaining to technical education, the supervisory and controlling authority is the AICTE, which has issued the notification dated 28.04.2017 wherein various degrees in Civil Engineering are mentioned and recognized by the council. It was averred that in the said notification dated 28.04.2017, which is marked as Annexure-7, the names of the degrees in ‘Traffic and Transportation Engineering’ and ‘Transportation Engineering’ are mentioned one after the other, indicating that the said degrees are equivalent and overlapping in nature. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner also laid emphasis on the clarification dated 23.10.2020 (Annexure-8), as issued by the AICTE, which read that any confusion with regard to equivalence, nomenclature, appropriateness and relevance of degrees is required to be resolved by the State or at the University level. 13. In response, while opposing the application of the clarification dated 23.10.2020 as issued by the AICTE qua equivalence to be drawn at the University level, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the clarification dated 23.10.2020 is limited in its applicability to ascertainment of degrees in Engineering and Technology for recruitment to teaching positions and promotions only. Therefore, the said clarification shall not be binding upon the respondents, especially when the recruitment is for the post of Assistant Town Planner, which quite evidently, is not a teaching position. 14. At this juncture, this Court, for the most part, accepts the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding the AICTE clarification dated 23.10.2020 being limited in its applicability to ascertainment of degrees qua teaching positions and promotions only, as is made evident by a mere perusal of the subject of the letter dated 23.10.2020, which is marked as Annexure-8. 15. 15. However, having said that, this Court cannot turn a blind eye to the underlying essence and intent behind the clarification dated 23.10.2020 and the context in which the same was issued. A bare perusal of the clarification dated 23.10.2020 shall reflect that since the past many years, the AICTE had faced several issues with regards to the determination of equivalence of degrees issued by different universities across the country. Therefore, considering the ensuing uncertainty qua the nomenclature of different degrees, the AICTE issued the said clarification on equivalence, nomenclature and/or appropriateness of degrees for recruitment/promotion. Vide said clarification, the AICTE concluded that on account of constant change in the type of courses and nature of curriculums, the nomenclatures of degrees keep on changing. The institutes/universities often nomenclate degrees as per their own independent understanding of the curriculum, even when the said curriculum may be overlapping and synonymous to a differently nomenclatured degree. Therefore, vide said clarification dated 23.10.2020, the AICTE clarified that any confusion with regards to equivalence, nomenclature, appropriateness and relevance of degrees is required to be resolved by the State or at the University level. The relevant extract of the clarification dated 23.10.2020 is reproduced herein-under:- “Therefore, AICTE approved Institutions/Universities/Deemed Universities are required to carefully deal with faculty recruitment as well as other equivalent issues with proper justification in order to give justice to the aspiring candidates/incumbents during the process of scrutiny or applications for recruitment or promotion so that no injustice with any candidate or inducement is done during the recruitment or promotion. All concerned are now required to ensure that the queries on the above subject are resolved at the State or University level while using the aforesaid flexibility and in future no reference in the matter need be made to this Council.” 16. Hence, there can be no two ways about the fact that the underlying intent behind the issuance of the said clarification was to foreground and bring ashore the fact that the eligibility of a candidate for recruitment or promotion should not be solely based on the nomenclature of a degree, rather the same should take into consideration the fact of the courses studied by the candidate in order to obtain such a degree coupled with the syllabi of said courses etc, which cumulatively, shall aid in drawing equivalency between two degrees. 17. 17. Therefore, adopting the glaringly discernable and over-encompassing intent behind the issuance of the clarification dated 23.10.2020, it goes without saying that the ascertainment qua equivalency between the degrees of M.Tech. (Transportation Engineering) and M.Tech. (Traffic and Transportation Planning) is to be done whilst taking into consideration the courses studied by the pupils coupled with the syllabus included therein, and not merely on the basis of nomenclature, which is often altered on the basis of a university/institute’s independent and subjective understanding of the course. 18. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to place reliance upon Annexure-10 i.e. certificate of equivalence issued by the Rajasthan Technical University, Kota, between the degrees of M.Tech. (Transportation Engineering) and M.Tech. (Traffic and Transportation Planning). While issuing the said certificate dated 22.12.2023, the University duly took into consideration the syllabus and curriculum of the two courses, which includes the subjects of Traffic and Urban Planning, Transportation Planning and Sustainable Transportation etc, thereby making the two equivalent, with the sole differentiating factor being the nomenclature of the degrees. In essence, after considering the syllabus and curriculum, the University held that the degree of the petitioner i.e. M.Tech. (Transportation Engineering) shall be equivalent to the degree of M.Tech. (Traffic and Transportation Planning). 19. Therefore, it can be conclusively held that the entire purpose of incorporating the term ‘equivalent’ in the educational qualification clause of the advertisement shall be vitiated, if the respondent no.1-RPSC was to turn a blind eye to the syllabus and curriculum of the degrees whilst ascertaining equivalency, as opposed to what is reflective from the mere nomenclature of said degrees. Moreover, the factum of the respondents including the term ‘equivalent’ in the advertisement is further reflective of the fact of changing nature of degrees and their nomenclature, which paves the way for the inclusion of certain degrees which undertake synonymous courses, under distinctly nomenclatured degree titles. 20. Having made the foregoing observations, this Court deems it appropriate to hold that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that the aspect of equivalence of degrees has already been considered vide report/decision dated 08.02.2024, by the expert committee constituted at the end of the respondents, thereby precluding judicial interference, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that a bare perusal of Annexures A3 and A4 i.e. Minutes of the Meeting dt. 08.02.2024 and the Note sheet of said meeting, reflects that while arriving at the decision to hold that the degree of M.Tech. (Transportation Engineering) is not equivalent to M.Tech. (Traffic and Transportation Planning), no application was mind exercised. The order dt. 08.02.2024 is completely non-speaking in nature insofar as it does not exhibit any rationale adopted to arrive at the impugned finding of non-equivalence. Not a single whisper of logic, reasoning and/or relied upon material is discernable from the order dt. 08.02.2024. Therefore, having taken note of Annexure-9 i.e. details of the course of the petitioner coupled with the certificate dt. 22.12.2023 exhibiting equivalence of degrees discerned pursuant to the analysis of the curriculum of the said courses, this Court deems it appropriate to extend judicial interference in holding that the degree of M.Tech. (Transportation Engineering) is equivalent to M.Tech. (Traffic and Transportation Planning). The order dt. 08.02.2024, as passed by the expert committee constituted by the respondents, which is purely non-speaking in nature with no whisper of consideration of the syllabus and curriculum of the two courses, can be said to be violative of the wednesbury’s principle. 21. Moreover, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Sandeep Shriram Warade (Supra) and Zahoor Ahmad (Supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, for the following reasons:-21.1 That the said judgments were passed in a distinguishable factual matrix. 21.2 That the advertisement dated 04.10.2022 itself has expressly incorporated the term ‘equivalent’ to pave way for ascertaining equivalency of degrees with those categorically spelled out in the advertisement. 21.3 That the decision taken by the respondents qua the ascertainment of equivalency is amiss of logic and rationale. No findings have been incorporated in support of the said decision to denounce equivalency of degrees. 21.4 That it is a settled position of law that cryptic and arbitrary orders passed by the employer cannot take precedence over detailed orders based on discernable rationale and logic. Being a welfare state, the respondents cannot take arbitrary decisions in matters of public employment, without the backing of any logic and rationale in support of their findings. The discretion with the employer-State to dictate the terms of recruitment has to be exercised with certain checks and balances. Being a welfare state, the respondents cannot take arbitrary decisions in matters of public employment, without the backing of any logic and rationale in support of their findings. The discretion with the employer-State to dictate the terms of recruitment has to be exercised with certain checks and balances. 21.5 That initially, pursuant to the petitioner successfully clearing the written examination, the respondents had themselves permitted the petitioner to participate in the counselling, being well aware of his educational qualifications. 22. Therefore, cumulatively considering the fact that the dynamic nature of the world of education results into changes in the nomenclature of certain degrees with time despite the syllabus and curriculum being stagnant; that institutes/universities often nomenclate degrees as per their own independent and subjective understanding of the curriculum, even when the said curriculum may be overlapping and synonymous to a differently nomenclatured degree; that the underlying intent behind the issuance of the clarification dated 23.10.2020 was to foreground and bring ashore the fact that the eligibility of a candidate for recruitment or promotion should not be solely based on the nomenclature of a degree, rather the same should take into consideration the fact of the courses studied by the candidate in order to obtain such a degree coupled with the syllabi of said courses; that vide certificate dated 22.12.2023, after duly considering the syllabus and curriculum, the University held that the degree of the petitioner i.e. M.Tech. (Transportation Engineering) shall be equivalent to the degree of M.Tech. (Traffic and Transportation Planning); that the order dt. 08.02.2024, as passed by the expert committee constituted by the respondents, which is purely non-speaking in nature with no whisper of consideration of the syllabus and curriculum of the two courses, can be said to be violative of wednesbury’s principle; that cryptic and arbitrary orders passed by the employer cannot take precedence over detailed orders based on discernible rationale and logic, thereby paving way for judicial interference, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the instant petition in terms of the prayers so advanced. 23. As a result, in light of the foregoing observations, this Court deems it appropriate to hold that whilst covering all squares, the degree held by the petitioner i.e. M.Tech. (Transportation Engineering) is equivalent to M.Tech. (Traffic and Transportation Planning). 24. Accordingly, in terms of the above, the instant petition stands allowed in terms of the prayers so advanced. 23. As a result, in light of the foregoing observations, this Court deems it appropriate to hold that whilst covering all squares, the degree held by the petitioner i.e. M.Tech. (Transportation Engineering) is equivalent to M.Tech. (Traffic and Transportation Planning). 24. Accordingly, in terms of the above, the instant petition stands allowed in terms of the prayers so advanced. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.