Order : 1. Petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks direction to the respondents to consider his computer course certificate equivalent to the RS-CIT course and grant him appointment as Patwari from the date less meritorious candidates were appointed, with all consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner approached respondent no.3 to request recognition of his computer certificate as equivalent to the RS-CIT course, but this was denied. Respondent no.3 advised the petitioner to obtain confirmation from the issuing authority about the equivalence of his certificate with the RS-CIT course. Subsequently, the petitioner contacted the Directorate General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence, on 25/11/2018 for clarification. On 06/12/2018, the Directorate clarified that the computer course conducted by Creative Computers, Thane, on behalf of DOEACC, a Central Government body, should be considered equivalent to the RS-CIT course. The petitioner then submitted a representation to respondent no.3 on 12/12/2018, requesting recognition of his certificate for eligibility for the Patwari post. However, no action has been taken. 2.1. He further argues that respondent no.3 issued a press note stating that certificates from other states, including MS-CIT, would be accepted for the Patwari post. Therefore, the petitioner’s certificate, recognized by the Ministry of Defence, should also be considered equivalent to the RS-CIT course. As certificates from other states are accepted, it is only fair that the petitioner’s certificate be considered equivalent for the purpose of appointment to the Patwari post. 3. Relevant stand taken by the respondents is in para Nos.8 and 9. Being apposite, the same is reproduced hereinbelow: “8. That in reply to the contents of para no. 8 & 9 of the writ petition it is humbly submitted by the answering respondent that the eligibility criteria selection and considering the educational qualification for the post of patwari is governed by the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 and thus an eligibility of a candidate has to ascertain in terms of the rules of 1957 and in accordance to the rules the duration of the RS-CIT computer course is to be of 90 days whereas the petitioner has undergone the computer course from 04.02.2008 to 26.04.2008 therefore the course undergone by the petitioner is not equivalent to RS-CIT as provided in the rules of 1957 thus his candidature could not have been considered. 9. 9. That the contents of para no.10 of the writ petition do not need any comments from the answering respondents being matter of record but it would be relevant to mention here that the petitioner sought clarification form the ministry of defence in regard to the computer course he underwent is equivalent to the computer course of RS-CIT but whereas the duration of the RS-CIT course is of 90 days and the petitioner underwent a course of 83 days and therefore the Ministry of Defence can not give any clarification to the fact that the course the petitioner underwent is not equivalent to the RS-CIT.” 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and have perused the case file. 5. Firstly, I am unable to persuade myself with the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the advertisement does not specify any duration of the certificate. It is for the experts to see admissibility of the certificate and based on the same the certificate of RS-CIT was considered as the bench mark and the said bench mark is based on a minimum duration of 90 days of course. Concededly the petitioner has undergone a computer course only got for 6 weeks starting from 04.02.2008 to 26.04.2008 and the said course was therefore not found equivalent to the one as per the advertisement. Accepting the petitioner’s contention will result in reverse discrimination qua those, who were similarly situated and were held ineligible and thus could not apply for the post in question. 6. All that has to be seen is the eligibility condition as per the advertisement Clause-7(iii), English translation of which, reads as below:- “‘O’ Level or Advanced Level Certificate conducted by the Department of Electronics Accreditation of Computer Courses (DOEACC) under the Ministry of Electronics, Government of India.” 7. From the above, it is clear that either a candidate should have ‘O’ Level certificate, which is duly sponsored by DOEACC, or it should be RS-CIT. Concededly, the petitioner does not have RS- CIT certificate, but he has a certificate (Annexure-1) issued by one Creative Computers, which simply says that he has undergone a course in basic computer application. The same does not qualify to be ‘O’ Level. 8. Concededly, the petitioner does not have RS- CIT certificate, but he has a certificate (Annexure-1) issued by one Creative Computers, which simply says that he has undergone a course in basic computer application. The same does not qualify to be ‘O’ Level. 8. The strenuous reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on a communication by officiating Director Training from the Directorate General of Re-settlement vide his letter dated 06.12.2018 addressed to respondent No.3-Selection Board recommending that the basic application course undergone by the petitioner at Creative Computers, which was sponsored by DOEACC be recognized as equivalent to Rajasthan State Computer Information Technology, is also insignificant as already observed hereinabove. The eligibility has to be as per the advertisement and not by virtue of a recommendation from non-expert official of Defence Services, who in enthusiasm to help an ex-serviceman, has requested to relax the requirement of minimum level of certificate, which has been clearly prescribed either as ‘O’ level or RS-CIT. Petitioner since does not possess any of it, I am in agreement with the defence taken in the reply filed by the respondents. 9. In the premise, no grounds to interfere. 10. Dismissed. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.