Order : SUDESH BANSAL, J. 1. The petitioners, in this batch of writ petitions, have appeared in the Written (Main Examination) conducted on 24.12.2016, for appointment on the post of Patwari through Direct Recruitment Examination-2015, pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.11.2015. The petitioners participated in the present recruitment under the category of 'ex-servicemen'. The issue raised by all the petitioners is of substantially, identical nature that they have acquired and possess equivalent qualification of computer education as required and prescribed for the post of Patwari, but their qualifications have not been considered by the respondents, merely on the ground that their qualifications do not fall within the prescribed qualification of Computer Education as indicated in the advertisement dated 04.11.2015. According to petitioners, the computer qualification acquired by them, is equivalent or higher than the prescribed qualification, therefore, candidature of the petitioners deserve to be considered for appointment on the post of Patwari on merits. 2. Since, question involved in respect of equivalence of computer qualification of petitioners, is substantially similar nature, with the consent of counsel for both the parties, all writ petitions have been heard together and would stand decided by this common order. 3. Relevant factual matrix, in nutshell, is that, vide Advertisement dated 04.11.2015 and amended advertisements, about 4426 vacancies of Patwari were notified, who after selection are required to be posted in the Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan. As per the said advertisement, recruitment for the post of Patwari is to be made as per the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1957') and the Rajasthan Scheduled Area Subordinate Ministerial & Class-IV Services (Recruitment & Other Service Conditions) Rules, 2014. As per the said advertisement, recruitment for the post of Patwari is to be made as per the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1957') and the Rajasthan Scheduled Area Subordinate Ministerial & Class-IV Services (Recruitment & Other Service Conditions) Rules, 2014. The requisite qualification for the post in question as prescribed in the advertisement, which is in consonance with the qualification as prescribed under Rule 273(4)(i) of the Rules of 1957 as amended vide Notification dated 12.08.2015, is as under:- “(i) The applicant must have a working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri Script, knowledge of Rajasthan Culture and following qualifications, namely:- (I) He must have passed the 10+2/ Senior Secondary School Examination or any other equivalent examination, recognized by the Government and (II) ‘O’ or higher level certificate course, conducted by the Department of Electronics Accrediation of Computer Course (DOEACC) under the control of the Department of Electronics, Government of India; Or Computer Operator and Programming Assistant (COPA)/ Data Preparation and Computer Software (DPCS) certificate course organized under the National Council on Vocational Training/ State Council on Vocational Training Scheme; Or Diploma in computer Scheme/ Computer Applications from a University established by law in India or from an Institution recognized by the Government; Or Diploma in Computer Science Course in Information Technology (RSCIT) conducted by Vardhman Mahaveer Open University, Kota under control of Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Limited.” vkosnu i= izLrqr djrs le; vkosnd dh fuEufyf[kr ;ksXrk,a gksuh pkfg,%& 1- vkosnd 10+2/ lhfu;j lSd.Mjh Ldwy ijh{kk mRrh.kZ ;k blds led{k vU; ijh{kk mRrh.kZ ftls ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk iznku dh gqbZ gS] vkSj 2- nsoukxjh fyfi esa fy[kh fgUnh esa dk;Z djus dk Kku ,oa jktLFkku dh laLd`fr dk Kku ,oa fuEukfdra ;ksX;rk,sa gksuk vko';d gS%& 3- Hkkjr ljdkj ds bysDVªksfuDl foHkkx ds fu;a=.kk/khu fMikVZesUV vkWQ bysDVªksfuDl ,ØhfMVs”ku vkWQ dEI;wVj dkslZ (DOEACC) }kjk vk;ksftr ^vks* ysoy ;k mPp Lrj dk izek.k i= ;k O ;olkf;d izf'k{k.k ;kstuk ds jk"Vªh; ifj"kn¼us'kuy dkWfly½@jkT; ifjkn ¼LVsV dkWfly½ ds v/khu vk;ksftr dEI;wVj vkWijsVj ,oa izksxzkfeax vflLVsaV (COPA)/DATA rS;kjh vkSj dEI;wVj lkW¶Vos;j (DPCS) dkslZ dk izek.k&i= ;k Hkkjr esa fof/k }kjk laLFkkfir fo'ofo|ky; ;k ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku ls dEI;wVj lkbal@dEI;wVj ,Iyhds'ku esa fMIyksek ;k ljdkj ls ekU;rk izkIr ikWfyVsfDud laLFkku ls dEI;wVj foKku vkSj bathfu;fjax esa fMIyksek ;k jktLFkku ukWyst dkWjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds fu;a=.k esa o/kZeku egkohj [kqyk fo'ofo|ky; dksVk }kjk vk;ksftr lwpuk izks|ksfxdh esa jktLFkku LVsV lfVZfQdsV bu bUQksjes'ku VsDuksyksth (RS-CIT) dkslZ dk izek.k i=A 4. It is further case of petitioners that they have cleared preliminary examination and appeared in the written main examination, but thereafter, at the stage of documents verification, petitioners have been verbally denied from consideration of their candidature on merits, due to not possessing the qualifications of computer education, as prescribed in the advertisement dated 04.11.2015 or under Rule 273(4)(i) of the Rules of 1957, quoted hereinabove. 5. As far as academic qualification of 10+2/Senior Secondary School Examination or any other equivalent examination recognized by the Government is concerned; undisputedly, petitioners possess such qualification and similarly, there is no dispute that the petitioners have knowledge of working in Devnagri Script of Hindi. The dispute is only confined to the qualification of petitioners in the computer education. The petitioners, in their writ petitions, have disclosed and enclosed the documents of Certificate Courses, underwent by them to acquire the knowledge of computer education, while in service in the Indian Army. It would be apropos to reproduce the duration of Course, details of Certificate and name of Institutions, from where petitioners obtained their computer education, in following tabular form: S.No . Name of Petitioner(s) Name of Course(s) Name of Institution(s) Duration of Course(s) 1. Dashrath Chauhan Certificate of DOEACC ‘O’ Level (Diploma in Computer Application) Computer Graphics & Design Centre affiliated with Directorate General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence (i) 05.10.2009 to 20.03.2010 2. Name of Petitioner(s) Name of Course(s) Name of Institution(s) Duration of Course(s) 1. Dashrath Chauhan Certificate of DOEACC ‘O’ Level (Diploma in Computer Application) Computer Graphics & Design Centre affiliated with Directorate General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence (i) 05.10.2009 to 20.03.2010 2. Mohan Singh Certificate of Diploma in Information Technology Global IT Sources, Kolkata, affiliated with Advanced Computing Training School (ACTS), Pune & National Resource Centre of C-DAC in Advanced Computing Training 18.08.2005 to 29.09.2005 (180 hours course) 3 Subhash Kumar Certificate of Foundation Course in Information Technology (i) Dah Information Technology Institute, Yol Cantt (i) 28.05.2001 to 23.06.2001 4 Subhash Chandra Puri Certificate of Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering , Class-1 3 Technical Training Regiment, 2 Signal Training Centre, Bambolim, Goa affiliated with All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) February, 2015 to April, 2015 6 months course 5 Mahesh Kumar Certificate Course in Data Entry Operator AISECT University affiliated with AU-NSDC Academy for Skill Development 6 Raj Singh Yadav Certificate of Diploma in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering 1 Technical Training Regiment,1 Signal Training Centre, Jabalpur (M.P.) affiliated with All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) 6 months course 7 Hopi Kumar Certificate of Office Automation Setmin Institute of Management & Computers affiliated with Society for Employment, Promotion & Training in Twin Cities October, 1996 to December, 1996 8 Sohan Singh Yadav Certificate Course in Computer Concept Creative Computers affiliated with DGR Ministry of Defence, Government of India 02.03.2015 to 30.05.2015 9 Mahipal Certificate of training in Basic Fundamentals of Computer General Officer Commanding 5 MTN Division, Ball of Fire Division 11.05.2007 to 05.06.2007 10 Puspender Singh (i) Certificate of training in DOEACCCCC (ii) Certificate of Advance Diploma in Computer Application (i) Jan Sikshan Evam Jan Kalyan Sansthan affiliated with Directorate General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence (ii) Rajeev Gandhi Computer Saksharta Mission (i) 03.03.2015 to 30.03.2015 (ii) one year 11 Nortan Prajapatti (i) Certificate of Automated Data Processing Assistant Programmers) (ii) Certificate of diploma in M.S. Windows 95 & M.S. Office 97 (Word, Excel, Power Point & Access) (i) The Infantry School, Mhow (ii) New Technology Training Centre (i) 30.09.1996 to 23.11.1996 (ii) 15.09.1998 to 14.11.1998 12 Jagbir Singh Certificate of Junior Engineering System Indian Armed Force Trade Proficiency 13 Sohan Lal Certificate of Course in Computer Concepts National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT) affiliated with Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Government of India More than 3 months 14 Arjun Choudhary Certificate of Course in Computer Concepts National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT) affiliated with Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Government of India More than 3 months 15 Nar Singh Awana (i) Certificate of Junior Engineering System (ii) Certificate of Diploma in Information Technology (i) Indian Armed Force Trade Proficiency 16 Mahipal Yadav Certificate of training in DOEACC-CCC Shraddha Jan Seva Samiti affiliated with Directorate General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence 03.08.2015 to 28.08.2015 6. The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the qualification in computer education, possessed by the petitioners, is equivalent or higher than the qualification, prescribed in the advertisement or under the Rule 273(4)(i) of the Rules of 1957 as amended vide Notification dated 12.08.2015. Hence, their prayer is that on the basis of such qualification of the petitioners, their candidature ought to have been considered for appointment on merits, for post of Patwari or in the alternative, their verbal prayer is that the respondent-Board, before declining to consider the candidature of the petitioners on merits, ought to have sought clarification/report from the State Government in respect of equivalence of the certificate courses in computer education possessed by the petitioners, with the certificate courses prescribed in the advertisement dated 04.11.2015 as requisite and acceptable computer qualification for the post of Patwari. 7. Counsel for the petitioners, pointed out that in case of Nar Singh Awana Versus State of Rajasthan: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18988/2018 , respondent-Board undertook such exercise and vide letter dated 27.04.2018 (Annexure-10), guidelines/opinion of the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, was asked for by the Board, in respect of equivalence of computer qualification possessed by him. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the letter dated 27.04.2018 of the Board, is being reproduced hereunder wherein the computer qualification of the candidate, namely, Nar Singh Awana, is also incorporated: ^^iVokj lh/kh HkrhZ ijh{kk esa iVokjh ds in ij vH;FkhZ Jh ujflag vokuk dk vLFkkbZ :i ls p;u fd;k x;k gSA mDr vH;FkhZ }kjk iVokj HkrhZ dh dEI;wVj laca/kh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds :i esa fuEu nLrkost izLrqr fd;s x;s gS%& i. 2 SIGNAL TRAINING CENTER ds }kjk vk;ksftr Yeoman of Signals Course Sr. YMN-57 DATED 1-12- 1997 ls 12 -09-1998 vadrkfydkA ii. Indian Armed Forced Trade Proficiency Certificate Course dk izek.k i=A iii. 2 SIGNAL TRAINING CENTER ds }kjk vk;ksftr Yeoman of Signals Course Sr. No. YMN-57 DATED 27-05-1996 ls 21-09- 1996 vadrkfydkA iv. HQ2 SIGNAL TRAINING CENTER, PANJI (GOA) ds }kjk tkjh i=A vr% d`I;k ekxZn'kZu Qjekosa fd Jh vokuk }kjk vftZr mDr dEI;wVj laca/kh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk dks iVokjh ds in ds fy, fu/kkZfjr dEI;wVj laca/kh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds led{k ekudj vH;FkhZ dks ik= ekuk tkosa vFkok ughaA^^ 8. No. YMN-57 DATED 27-05-1996 ls 21-09- 1996 vadrkfydkA iv. HQ2 SIGNAL TRAINING CENTER, PANJI (GOA) ds }kjk tkjh i=A vr% d`I;k ekxZn'kZu Qjekosa fd Jh vokuk }kjk vftZr mDr dEI;wVj laca/kh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk dks iVokjh ds in ds fy, fu/kkZfjr dEI;wVj laca/kh 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds led{k ekudj vH;FkhZ dks ik= ekuk tkosa vFkok ughaA^^ 8. Submission of counsel for petitioners is that the Board should have undertaken such process of obtaining the guidelines/opinion of the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, in respect of computer qualification of the other writ petitioners as well and the action of the Board, rejecting candidature of the petitioners verbally during the course of document verification, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative to the principle of natural justice. It has been urged that the petitioners have secured higher marks in the written examination than the selected candidates, hence, declining to consider their candidature for appointment on merits, is nothing but an arbitrary and despotic action of the respondent-Board, which cannot be countenanced under the law. It has been argued that legal and constitutional rights of the petitioners, vested by virtue of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India, have been violated. 9. It has further been pointed out that in few of the writ petitions i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.21426/2017, 21364/2017, 21410/2017, 21493/2017, 22680/2017, 23126/2017 & 18988/2018, interim orders, in favour of the writ petitioners have been passed by the High Court. In compliance of the interim orders, in few matters, vacant posts under the category of the petitioners have been kept vacant and in other few matters, the candidature of the petitioners was directed to be considered on merits provisionally and in pursuance thereof, they have also been given appointment and presently are serving on the post of Patwari with the respondent-State. 10. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-Board and learned Additional Government Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents, have opposed the writ petitions and submit that process of Patwar Direct Recruitment Examination- 2015 has been completed. The aspirants, who were in possession of the requisite educational and computer qualifications and were found to in merit, have been selected in their respective categories as much as appointments have also been offered to them and most of the vacancies have been filled. The aspirants, who were in possession of the requisite educational and computer qualifications and were found to in merit, have been selected in their respective categories as much as appointments have also been offered to them and most of the vacancies have been filled. However, it has been pointed out that yet as many as 63 vacant posts are still available and have not been filled either on account of interim stay orders or because of pendency of these writ petitions. Such vacant posts include posts under the category of ex-servicemen also. 11. During the course of arguments, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Sandeep Taneja, contended that the scope of judicial review cannot be exercised to decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualification, given in the advertisement, and it is trite law that the prescribed qualification in the advertisement, if is in conformity to the qualification prescribed in the statutory rules, the recruitment agency is bound to adhere to the same and such prescribed qualification may not be diluted or relaxed by the Court in any way. It has further contended that since the qualification of computer education, as referred and relied upon by the writ petitioners, do not match or fall within the qualification, prescribed in the advertisement or Rule 273(4)(i) of the Rules of 1957 (as amended), the Board cannot be held to be at fault for not considering the candidature of petitioner for appointment, apparently for want of requisite qualification of computer education. Learned Additional Advocate General argued that merely qualifying the prelims examination and appearing in the written main examination by the petitioner, may not be taken as accepting the computer qualification of writ petitioners by the respondent-Board as sufficient or equivalent, but the qualification so acquired/possessed by the petitioners relied upon herein was indeed examined/verified by the Board, at the stage of documents verification and since the qualification, in respect of computer education of petitioners were not found in accordance with the requisite and prescribed qualification, their candidature were denied to be considered on merits. Reliance has been placed by learned Additional Advocate General on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shifana P.S. Vs. State of Kerala: [ (2024) 8 SCC 309 ] and on a recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 02.04.2025 delivered in case of Jomon K.K. Vs. Shajimon P. & Ors. Reliance has been placed by learned Additional Advocate General on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shifana P.S. Vs. State of Kerala: [ (2024) 8 SCC 309 ] and on a recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 02.04.2025 delivered in case of Jomon K.K. Vs. Shajimon P. & Ors. Etc.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.7930-7931/2020. 12. Learned Additional Advocate General has also brought to the notice of this Court that claim of few of the writ petitioners is to acquire prescribed qualification of certificate of RS-CIT from Vardhman Mahaveer Open University, Kota, after submission of online application form, which may be considered but indeed that qualification cannot be taken into consideration, in the present recruitment since last cut off date to acquire such qualification was fixed by the Board, on the date of conducting preliminary examination which was scheduled and conducted on 13.02.2016. Since the certificate of RS-CIT, so produced and relied upon by few of the writ petitions, is of date subsequent to the cut off date i.e. 13.02.2016, hence, on the basis of such subsequently acquired certificates, writ petitioners may not be treated to be eligible in the present recruitment-2015. 13. Learned Additional Advocate General further pointed out that this issue has already been taken into consideration on merits by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11309/2017 titled as ' Shivdutt Singh Rathore Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. ' and other connected writ petitions decided vide order dated 01.11.2017 and the order has been affirmed by the Division Bench, thus the issue stands concluded and does not arise for consideration again. 14. In respect of issuance of the letter dated 27.04.2018 by the Board, for seeking opinion of Department of Personnel, about the equivalence of computer educational/ Certificates of petitioner-Nar Singh Awana is concerned, learned Additional Advocate General does not dispute issuance of such letter by the Board and submits that since, after publication of the advertisement, few of the computer courses and qualification of B.Tech, etc. with the computer subject, were also approved/ recognized by the Board, for grant of appointment on the post of Patwari in the present Recruitment-2015, hence, such letter dated 27.04.2018 was issued, for seeking guidelines/opinion of the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan. But finally, counsel for respondents have prayed for dismissal of writ petitions. 15. with the computer subject, were also approved/ recognized by the Board, for grant of appointment on the post of Patwari in the present Recruitment-2015, hence, such letter dated 27.04.2018 was issued, for seeking guidelines/opinion of the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan. But finally, counsel for respondents have prayed for dismissal of writ petitions. 15. Heard respective counsel for both the parties at length and perused the record as also extended thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions made by the respective counsels. 16. The issue, which arose for consideration before this Court, is as to whether the qualification of Computer Education/Certificate Courses possessed by the petitioners, have equivalence or can be considered equivalent para materia to the Computer Courses, prescribed in the advertisement dated 04.11.2015 for the post of Patwari? 17. It is not res-integra that the scope of judicial review while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may not be exercised to decide the equivalence of prescribed educational/ vocational qualifications. In this respect, it would be suffice to reproduce Para Nos. 13, 14 & 15 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shifana P.S. (supra) hereunder:- "13. This Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather Vs. Sk. Imtiyaz Ahmad: (2019) 2 SCC 404 held that judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Therefore, the equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that can be determined in the 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. (emphasis supplied) 14. In Unikrishnan CV v. Union of India: (2023) 18 SCC 546 , a three Judge Bench of this Court, while relying upon the earlier judgment in the case of Guru Nanak Dev University v. 2 (2019) 2 SCC 404 3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 343 Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another4 held that equivalence is a technical academic matter, it cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the University relating to equivalence should be by specific order or resolution, duly published. 15. Any decision of the academic body of the University relating to equivalence should be by specific order or resolution, duly published. 15. The fervent plea advanced on behalf of the appellant that the University of Calicut had issued a certificate dated 10th October, 2011 verifying that B.Sc(Polymer Chemistry) course of the said University is recognised as equivalent to its B.Sc(Chemistry) course is also not tenable in light of the observations made by this Court in the case of Unikrishnan CV (supra). In view of the settled principles of law flowing from the above precedents, we are of the firm view that the appellant herein was not qualified for the post advertised vide notification dated 30th April, 2008." 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jomon K.K. (supra), while reaffirming and reiterating the principle expounded by the Apex Court in case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 54 , held that if an appointment is illegal, it is non- est in the eye of law and the principles of equity in a case of such nature would have no role to play; also that, the sympathy should not be misplaced. 19. It is noteworthy that in case of Shivdutt Singh Rathore (supra), the issue of equivalence of the qualification of the candidates for the post of Patwari in the Direct Recruitment Examination-2015 was not considered by the Coordinate Bench. Nevertheless, it is true that in that case, the issue in respect of non-consideration of the RS-CIT Certificate, if acquired/obtained by any of the candidates, post to the cut off date i.e. 13.02.2016 in the present recruitment was considered and decided against the petitioners. That issue has attained finality, since the order passed by Coordinate Bench has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Counsel for petitioners have also not raised this issue of acquiring subsequent qualification again in these batch of petitions and only issue of equivalence of qualification of computer education is under consideration. 20. That issue has attained finality, since the order passed by Coordinate Bench has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Counsel for petitioners have also not raised this issue of acquiring subsequent qualification again in these batch of petitions and only issue of equivalence of qualification of computer education is under consideration. 20. It is further noteworthy that the prescribed qualification of computer education, as indicated in the advertisement dated 04.11.2015 for direct recruitment on the post of Patwari, may not be treated as absolute, final or sacrosanct, because few other nature of computer educational qualifications/certificates which are not prescribed therein, were also allowed to be taken into consideration by the Board, as admitted by the learned Additional Advocate General during course of his arguments. 21. In the similar lines, the issuance of letter dated 27.04.2018 (Annexure-10 enclosed with S.B.C.W.P. No.18988/2018) seeking guidelines/opinion of the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, in respect of equivalence of the computer qualification of one of the candidate-Nar Singh Awana, is also an undisputed fact. 22. This Court finds that prima facie the computer courses, allegedly undergone by the petitioners while in service in the Indian Army are from the institute, which are stated to be recognized by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India or other affiliated institution by the Government of India, Department of Technology/ All India Council for Technical Education/ Advanced Computing Training School, etc. It is not the plea of the Board that such certificate course of computer education are fake or certificates of petitioners are false or forged. The only defence is that such certificate courses are not included in the courses indicated in the Advertisement. 23. In such view of the matter, this Court is of opinion that the certificate courses in the computer education, undergone and possessed by the petitioners, may not be brushed aside at the threshold by the Board, merely on the ground that such certificate courses are not similar courses or do not fall within the ambit of the courses, as prescribed in the advertisement dated 04.11.2015. 24. This Court finds that the Board has not obtained any opinion/report of the Expert Committee or guidelines/opinion from the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, in respect of equivalence of the educational qualification of writ petitioners with the qualification computer education prescribed in the advertisement, barring in case of Nar Singh Awana (supra). 25. 24. This Court finds that the Board has not obtained any opinion/report of the Expert Committee or guidelines/opinion from the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, in respect of equivalence of the educational qualification of writ petitioners with the qualification computer education prescribed in the advertisement, barring in case of Nar Singh Awana (supra). 25. It has been stated that petitioners are meritorious candidates under the category of ex-servicemen and have scored higher marks in the written (main examination) than the selected candidates in such category. The candidature of petitioners was not considered on merits for appointment. The admitted fact has come on record that after declaration of result, and giving appointment to the selected candidates, yet 63 posts remained unfilled, which include the vacant posts under the category of ex- servicemen, as disclosed by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court finds that at least equity lies in favor of petitioners. 26. In addition, the Court may not close its sight from the fact that in favour of few of writ petitioners, interim orders have also been passed by the Coordinate Bench of this High Court. Details of such writ petitions have been indicated in Para No.9 of this order. It is true that the interim order does not confer any additional right in favor of petitioners, however, this Court finds that the qualification of computer education, possessed by petitioners should be at least examined on the anvil of equivalence to the requisite qualification as prescribed in the advertisement and thereafter only their candidature can be considered afresh for appointment on merits against the unfilled and vacant posts of patwari. It is made clear that the persons, who have been given appointment obviously shall not be affected in any manner since the consideration of petitioners will be made only against the unfilled and vacant posts available with the respondents, pursuant to the present Recruitment-2015. 27. Hence, this Court reaches to a conclusion that it would be in the interest of justice and in equity that the Board should ask from the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan about the equivalence of the qualification of computer education of all the petitioners, with the qualification of computer education, as prescribed in the advertisement dated 04.11.2015 or considered as eligible qualification by the respondents in the present recruitment-2015 for the post of Patwari and direct so. It is hereby observed that the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan would be at liberty to seek assistance of the Experts, if so desire, before giving its final opinion/report. It is hereby further directed that if the opinion/report of Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, goes to show that the qualification of computer education of petitioners or any of them, is equivalent/ para materia to the prescribed or eligible qualification in the present recruitment-2015 and the petitioner(s) fall(s) in merit, he/she shall be offered appointment on the post of Patwari against the unfilled and vacant post available with the respondents. The appointment of selected candidates shall not be disturbed in any manner. Nevertheless, the appointment of candidates, granted provisionally under the interim orders of Court, may be interfered with by the respondents, as per final opinion of Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan about qualification. 28. Before parting with it is made clear that since the process of direct recruitment of Patwari, pursuant to advertisement dated 04.11.2015 has already been completed, however, relief of equitable nature, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been granted in favor of petitioners by this Court, taking into consideration that these writ petitions have approached before this Court within time in the year 2017- 2018, soon after declaration of result/ merit list of present recruitment-2015 and interim orders were passed in few of writ petitions as much as unfilled and vacant posts are available. Hence, the present directions shall be applicable only on the writ petitioners, of this batch of writ petitions and not in rem. No fresh writ petitions, praying for the relief granted to petitioners, shall be entertained. 29. Respondent-Board shall proceed to seek opinion from the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, within a period of four weeks from today. It is expected that Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan shall conclude and forward its opinion/report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of letter from the respondent-Board and thereafter, the Board shall proceed to take final decision for the petitioners, either to offer or not the appointment afresh or to confirm or cancel the provisional appointments, in terms of directions issued by this Court in this order. 30. All writ petitions stand disposed of in terms of directions stated hereinabove. 31. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.