Holding

Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the recruiting authority and the court cannot expand the prescribed qualifications; the university diploma is not equivalent to the industrial training diploma.

Summary

The appeal concerned the eligibility of candidates holding a two‑year Art and Craft diploma awarded by Kurukshetra University through distance education for posts of Arts and Crafts teachers in Haryana, where the recruitment advertisement required a two‑year diploma from the Haryana Industrial Training Department or an equivalent qualification. The High Court had held that the university diploma was equivalent and ordered the writ petitions dismissed. The Supreme Court examined whether the court can expand the prescribed qualifications and determine equivalence, noting that equivalence is a technical matter for the recruiting authority. It found that the university diploma, being a correspondence course, could not be equated with the regular classroom diploma and that the High Court erred in treating recognition as equivalence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the High Court’s order set aside.

Issues considered

Whether a diploma in Art and Craft awarded by Kurukshetra University through distance education is equivalent to the two‑year diploma in Art and Craft conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department for recruitment purposes.
Whether judicial review can expand the ambit of prescribed qualifications or decide the technical question of equivalence of qualifications.
Whether recognition of a course by the State is the same as equivalence for the purpose of eligibility.

Subjects

equivalence of qualificationsjudicial reviewdistance educationteacher recruitmenteligibility criteriastate authoritypublic serviceeducation law

Judgment

506 [2021]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 7 S.C.R. 506 [2021] 7 S.C.R.

A DEVENDER BHASKAR & ORS.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7031 of 2021)
B NOVEMBER 24, 2021
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Judicial Review – Equivalence of qualification –
Determination of – Held: Equivalence of qualification is a matter
for the State, as recruiting authority to determine – Judicial review
C
can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor
decide the ambit of the prescribed qualifications with any other
given qualification – On facts, the High Court erred in holding that
the diploma/degree in Art and Craft given by the Kurukshetra
University is equivalent to two-year Diploma in Art and Craft
D examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training
Department – Diploma through distance education cannot be
equated with the diploma given through regular class room studies
– Thus, order passed by the High Court set aside – Education/
Educational Institutions.
E Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The materials on record clearly suggest that
the Art and Craft Course is a highly practical oriented course
and the appointee teachers have to train the students in Art and
Craft which is a practical subject. The diploma in Art and Craft is
F given by the Industrial Training and Vocational Education
Department, Haryana, to the students who attend regular class
room teaching. Most of the subjects are practical subjects and
their study is not possible through distance education. The
Kurukshetra University grants the diploma in Art and Craft
through distance education. This diploma cannot be equated with
G the diploma given through regular class room studies. [Para
14][512-C-E]
1.2 Kurukshetra University itself has clarified that the
diploma in Art and Craft started by it through correspondence is
not meant for appointment to the post of Arts and Crafts Teachers.
H
506
DEVENDER BHASKAR & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & 507
ORS.

In fact, Kurukshetra University has never claimed that the said A
diploma is valid for appointment of Arts and Crafts Teachers.
The Registrar of Kurukshetra University in a public notice dated
27.09.2004 has clarified that this degree is meant for enabling
the students to become self-employed. None of the documents
produced by the petitioners would indicate that the diploma in
B
Art and Craft awarded by the Kurukshetra University is equivalent
to the two- year diploma in Art and Craft Examination conducted
by the Haryana Industrial Training Department. In its letter dated
24.12.2004, the Kurukshetra University has clearly stated that
the University does not guarantee any specific job for any of the
courses including the diploma in Art and Craft. The documents, C
Exhibit P2 to P4 do not claim that the course in question has
been recognized as equivalent to two-year Diploma in Art and
Craft examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training
Department or an equivalent qualification recognized by the
Haryana Education Department. [Paras 18, 19][516-H; 517-A-
D
C]
1.4 One of the eligibility criteria for appointment to the
post of Arts and Crafts teacher as per the advertisement dated
20.07.2006 is a “two-year Diploma in Art and Craft examination
conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or an
equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana Education E
Department.” It was made clear by the Industrial Training and
Vocational Educational Department, Haryana, that diploma in Art
and Craft Course by the Kurukshetra University is conducted
through distance education and that this course cannot be equated
with two-year diploma in Art and Craft Course awarded by the F
Haryana Industrial Training Department. Recognition of the said
Course by the State of Haryana, as held by the High Court, is
entirely different from its equivalence. When the experts in the
Education Department have held the diploma in Art and Craft by
the Kurukshetra University is not equivalent to the two-year
diploma in Art and Craft awarded by the Haryana Industrial G
Training Department, the High Court was not justified in equalizing
them. [Para 20][517-D-G]
1.5 Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the
prescribed qualifications not decide the ambit of the prescribed
H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.

A qualifications with any other given qualification. Equivalence of
qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority to
determine. The High Court erred in holding that the diploma/
degree in Art and Craft given by the Kurukshetra University is
equivalent to two-year Diploma in Art and Craft examination
conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or
B
diploma in Art and Craft conducted by Director, Industrial Training
and Vocational Education, Haryana. The Judgment and Order of
the High Court are set aside and the writ petitions are dismissed.
[Paras 25-27][519-A-D]
Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
C (1975) 3 SCC 76 : [1975] 1 SCR 449; J. Ranga Swamy
v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others (1990) 1
SCC 288; State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Lata Arun (2002)
6 SCC 252; Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay
Kumar Katwal & Anr. (2009) 1 SCC 610 : [2008] 14
D SCR 961; Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh
Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 404 : [2018] 14
SCR 1082 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1975] 1 SCR 449 referred to Para 21
E
(1990) 1 SCC 288 referred to Para 22
(2002) 6 SCC 252 referred to Para 23
[2008] 14 SCR 961 referred to Para 24
[2018] 14 SCR 1082 referred to Para 25
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.7031 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2007 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 20630 of 2006.
G R. Basant, Sr. Adv., Varinder Kumar Sharma, Anil Kumar, Vijay
Sharma, Shree Pal Singh, Aditya Ranjan, Shanker Raju, Dr. Surender
Singh Hooda, Ranbir Singh Yadav, Akshay Sahay, Prateek Yadav,
Mrs. Pratima Yadav, Advs. for the Appellants.
Dr. Monika Gusain, Harikesh Singh, R.D. Jatain, Satyendra Kumar,
H Ms. S. Janani, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Subodh Kr. Pathak, Vinod K.Soni,
DEVENDER BHASKAR & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & 509
ORS.

Pawan Kr.Sharma, Dr. Amardeep Gaur, M/S. V. Maheshwari & Co., A
Pardeep Dahiya, Ms. Mahima Benipuri, Devashish Bharuka, Advs. for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.
B
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Division Bench
of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging the
order dated 22.02.2007 passed in CWP No. 20630 of 2006 in Suman
Lata and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors. C
3. The appellants herein were impleaded as respondents before
the High Court as the outcome of the result of the said writ petition was
likely to affect their service career. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein,
namely, The State of Haryana, Director, School Education, Haryana
and Haryana Staff Selection Commission were arrayed as respondent D
nos. 1 to 3 in the writ petition. Most of the private respondents in this
appeal were writ petitioners before the High Court and some of the
respondents herein are interveners. For the sake of convenience, the
parties are referred to in their respective ranking before the High Court.
4. The dispute draws its genesis from the advertisement No.6/
E
2006, dated 20.07.2006 (Annexure-P8) which was issued by the Haryana
State Staff Selection Commission (for short, ‘Commission’) inviting
applications to fill up 816 posts of Arts and Crafts teachers in the State
of Haryana. The eligibility criteria for the same amongst others was as
under:
F
“(i) Matric from Haryana School Education Board or an equivalent
qualification recognized by the Haryana School Education Board.
(ii) Two year Diploma in Art and Craft examination conducted
by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or an
equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana
Education Department. G

(iii) Knowledge of Hindi upto Matric Standard.”
(emphasis added)
5. The case of the petitioners is that they passed their matriculation
with the subject of Arts and Crafts/Drawing or they have passed the H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.

A subject of Arts and Crafts/Drawing in their matriculation as additional
subject. All the petitioners passed their two-year diploma in Art and
Craft from the Kurukshetra University. The petitioners, on the basis of
their qualifications, applied for the aforesaid post to the Commission.
Their applications were not entertained by the Commission for the reason
that they had passed their two-year diploma in Art and Craft from
B
Kurukshetra University which is not recognized as equivalent qualification
by the Haryana Education Department, which led to the filing of the writ
petitions in the High Court.
6. On 12.12.2006, the Director of School Education Haryana,
Chandigarh, addressed a letter to all the District Education Officers/
C District Elementary Education Officers in which it was informed that
diploma in Art and Craft conducted by the Director, Industrial Training
and Vocational Education, Haryana, is the only recognized course in the
State of Haryana. This letter further stated that the diploma/certificates
in Art and Craft from the Kurukshetra University are not recognized for
D the purpose of appointment for Arts and Crafts Teacher in the State of
Haryana. The petitioners have also challenged the validity of this letter
in the writ petitions before the High Court.
7. Respondents no.1 to 3 filed objections opposing the writ petition.
It was contended that the diploma in Art and Craft is given by the Industrial
E Training and Vocational Education Department, Haryana, to the students
who attend regular class room teaching. Most of the subjects are practical
subjects and their studies cannot be possible through distance education.
The diploma granted by the Kurukshetra University in Art and Craft
through distance education is not a teacher training course. Therefore, it
cannot be equated with the diploma given through regular class room
F studies. Moreover, the said diploma is only for the purpose of self-
employment and the same is not recognized for the purpose of teacher
training course by the Education Department as well as by the
Department of Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana.
8. The private respondents in the writ petitions have also taken
G similar contentions and sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. The
High Court, on consideration of the contentions of the learned counsel
for the parties and on perusal of the materials placed on record, allowed
the writ petitions. The High Court held that the petitioners have a legal
right to be considered for the post of Arts and Crafts teachers with the
H strength of the diploma secured by them from the Kurukshetra University.
DEVENDER BHASKAR & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & 511
ORS. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

9. Learned counsel for the appellants herein (private respondents A
in the writ petitions) submitted that the diploma in Art and Craft granted
by the Kurukshetra University is not equivalent to the diploma in Art and
Craft given by the Industrial Training and Vocational Education
Department, Haryana. It is not recognised by the Haryana Education
Department. The diploma in Art and Craft by the Industrial Training and
B
Vocational Education Department, Haryana, is given to the students who
attend regular class room teaching. Most of the subjects are practical
subjects and their studies cannot be possible through distance education.
The diploma in Art and Craft granted by the said University is only for
enhancing academic qualification. In this connection, learned counsel
has drawn our attention to Annexures R-1 to R-3 enclosed along with C
the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent. It is argued that the
question is not whether diploma in Art and Craft by the Kurukshetra
University through distance education is invalid or illegal. Rather, the
question is whether the said diploma by the Kurukshetra University is an
‘equivalent qualification’ to the diploma in Art and Craft examination
D
conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department. It was also
contended that ‘equivalence’ is a technical matter and this Court cannot
direct the authorities to recognize it as equivalent when the expert’s
view is otherwise.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Haryana has
supported the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the E
appellants/private respondents in the writ petition.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the writ petitioners-
respondents herein would submit that the Kurukshetra University was
incorporated under the provisions of the Kurukshetra University Act,
1986 and that all the qualifications awarded through distance education F
by this University stand automatically recognized for the purpose of
employment to the posts and services under the Central Government.
The Government of Haryana has repeatedly confirmed the two-year
diploma in Art and Craft course offered by the Kurukshetra University.
In this connection, they have relied on the communications issued by the G
State Government and its Instrumentalities dated 02.11.1999, 27.05.2005
and 30.05.2005. He prays for dismissal of the appeal.
12. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned
counsels of the parties made at the Bar and perused the materials placed
on record. H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.

A 13. As noticed above, the advertisement dated 20.07.2006 was
issued by the Commission inviting applications for filling up of 816 posts
of Arts and Crafts teachers in the State of Haryana. One of the important
eligibility criteria was a two-year diploma in Art and Craft Examination
conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or an equivalent
qualification recognized by the Haryana Education Department. The
B
writ petitioners are holders of two-year diploma in Art and Craft from
the Kurukshetra University. Therefore, the question for consideration is
whether the diploma in Art and Craft by Kurukshetra University through
distance education is recognized by the Haryana Education Department
as an equivalent qualification to the diploma in Art and Craft Examination
C conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department.
14. The materials on record clearly suggest that the Art and Craft
Course is a highly practical oriented course and the appointee teachers
have to train the students in Art and Craft which is a practical subject.
The diploma in Art and Craft is given by the Industrial Training and
D Vocational Education Department, Haryana, to the students who attend
regular class room teaching. Most of the subjects are practical subjects
and their study is not possible through distance education. The Kurukshetra
University grants the diploma in Art and Craft through distance education.
This diploma cannot be equated with the diploma given through regular
class room studies. In fact, in a meeting convened by the Financial
E Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Industrial Training and Vocational
Education Department on 27.11.2003, it was decided to ask the
Kurukshetra University to discontinue the said course from the next
academic sessions i.e. 2004-2005 as it was running through distance
education and the same was not in the best interest of the students. The
F Kurukshetra University has issued a caution notice in various leading
newspapers in which it was made clear that some institutions who had
given misleading advertisement for Kurukshetra University course of
Art and Craft as a teacher training course. It was also clarified that the
diploma in Art and Craft from the Kurukshetra University does not
guarantee any specific job. The Minutes of the Meeting held on
G 27.11.2003 under the Chairmanship of Financial Commissioner and
Principal Secretary to the Government of Haryana makes this position
very clear which is as under:
“Minutes of the meeting held on 27.11.2003 at 11 AM under the
chairmanship of Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary
H
DEVENDER BHASKAR & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & 513
ORS. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

to Govt. Haryana, Industrial Training & Vocational Education A
Department regarding Art & Craft course started by Kurukshetra
University, Kurukshetra from the session 2003-2004.
Present
1. Sh. Dhanpat Singh, IAS
B
Higher Education Commissioner, Haryana.
2. Sh. Rajbir Singh, IAS
Director, Industrial Training & Vocational
Education, Haryana.
C
3. Sh. L.C. Gupta
Director, Correspondence courses,
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra
_________ D
1. Director Industrial Training informed that Kurukshetra
University, Kurukshetra has started a 2 Year Art & Craft
Course through distance education from this year 2003-
2004. The University did not take the permission from either
the Education Department or Industrial Training & E
Vocational Education Department.
2. Mr. L.C. Gupta pointed out that the University can start
correspondence courses at their own level and there was
no need to seek the permission from Govt. of Haryana/
Education Department. He further told that the public was F
informed that the course being conducted by them would
not guarantee a job.
3. A two year Art & Craft Teachers Training Course is already
being run by the Department of Industrial Training &
Vocational Education, Haryana. By starting a course of a
G
similar nature, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra has
stepped into the domain of the Industrial Training &
Vocational Education Department. It has further created a
confusion in the mind of general public as both the above
courses are similar and it may cause unrest in the youth
who has taken admission in this course as it is not recognized. H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.

A 4. The Art & Craft Teachers Training Course being conducted
by IT & VE Department is a recognized Vocational Course
whereas the course of Art & Craft started by Kurukshetra
University, Kurukshetra is a course conducted through
distance education and hence both these courses cannot
be equated.
B
It was decided that Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra
may be requested through the Education Department, Haryana
to discontinue this course from the next Academic Session 2004-
2005.”
C 15. The caution notice by the Kurukshetra University is as under:
“DIRECTORATE OF CORRESPONDENCE COURSES
KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

D CAUTION NOTICE
Some Institutions/Organisations have given
advertisements in various newspapers/media and have invited
Computer/Management/other Centres to get affiliation/franchises
of Kurukshetra University for running different courses of the
Directorate of Correspondence Courses. It is clarified that all
E
these advertisements are illegal and in violation of Clause-4 of the
terms and conditions of the Agreement for Service Providers which
clearly states that “in no case the Second Party (Service Provider)
shall be allowed to authorize any other agency/centre, other than
the study centres run by it, to enroll students to any course of this
F University and any violation will lead to cancellation of this
arrangement without any notice and no refund of any fee and
security will be allowed”. Therefore, the persons entering into
any such illegal arrangements will be doing so at their own risk
and responsibility.
G Some institutions/parties have also given misleading
advertisements for the Kurukshetra University Course of Diploma
in Art & Craft as a teachers training course. It is also clarified
that all DCC courses including Diploma in Art & Craft are
Kurukshetra University approved courses and do not guarantee
any specific job. Hence, the University will in no way be
H
DEVENDER BHASKAR & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & 515
ORS. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

responsible for any such misleading advertisements. In case of A
any doubt and for further clarifications if any, please contact at
phone 01744-238518.

DIRECTOR”
B
16. The Director and Under Secretary to the Government of
Haryana in his letter dated 24.11.2003 to the Higher Education
Commissioner, had clearly stated that the diploma course in Art and
Craft by the Kurukshetra University has not been given recognition by
the Education Department. This letter is as under:
C
“From
The Director,
Industrial Training & Vocational Education Department,
Haryana
D
To
1. Sh. Dhanpat Singh,
Higher Education Commissioner, Haryana
Higher Education Department. E
2. Director Correspondence Course
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.
Memo No.T-3/Art & Craft/Complaint/26586
Dated 24.11.2003 F
Subject : Regarding Art & Craft Professional Diploma
through Correspondence from Kurukshetra University
—————
The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra has started two G
years Art & Craft Professional Diploma Course through
Correspondence Course. This Diploma Course has not been given
recognition by Education Department and Industrial Training &
Vocational Education Department, Haryana.

H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.

A 2. The Finance Commissioner and Secretary to Government of
Haryana Industrial Training & Vocational Education Department
has called a meeting on 27.11.2003 at 11 A.M. in Room No.335,
IIIrd Floor, New Secretariate Sector-17, Chandigarh to consider
the matter of recognition course being run through correspondence
course by Kurukshetra University. You are requested to kindly
B
attend this meeting.
Sd/-
Director & Under Secretary to Govt. of Haryana
Industrial Training & Vocational Education Department,
C Haryana”
17. The following table manifests that both the courses are not
equivalent courses.
Sl.No. Arts and Crafts Arts and Crafts Diploma
Training course from from Kurukshetra
Dep artment of Industrial University, Kurukshetra
D Training and Vocational
Education, Haryana

1. Regular Course having 2 theory Correspondence course
papers and 8 practicals. having 2 theory papers and
6 practi cals.
2. Admissions on the basis of merit No eligibility criteria only
i.e. Matric’s percentage with 10+2 is the eligibili ty in any
E Drawing as one of the subject. stream. No merit
determination and no age
bar.
3. Reservation policy applicable. No reservation policy.

4. Limited seats i.e. 30 students No limited seats.
consists of one unit.
5. Internal assessment of 160 No internal assessment.
F marks.
6. Regular pract ical classes in lab No regular practical classes
such as: - as the same is
a) Wood work; correspondence course.
b) Clay modeling;
c) Painting;
d) Applied Art;
e) Scale Geometry;
G f) Design and poster; &
g) Still life.

18. It is also relevant to state here that Kurukshetra University
itself has clarified that the diploma in Art and Craft started by it through
correspondence is not meant for appointment to the post of Arts and
H Crafts Teachers. In fact, Kurukshetra University has never claimed that
DEVENDER BHASKAR & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & 517
ORS. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

the aforementioned diploma is valid for appointment of Arts and Crafts A
Teachers. The Registrar of Kurukshetra University in a public notice
dated 27.09.2004 has clarified that this degree is meant for enabling the
students to become self-employed. None of the documents produced by
the petitioners would indicate that the diploma in Art and Craft awarded
by the Kurukshetra University is equivalent to the two-year diploma in
B
Art and Craft Examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training
Department. In its letter dated 24.12.2004, at Exhibit P-4, the Kurukshetra
University has clearly stated that the University does not guarantee any
specific job for any of the courses including the diploma in Art and Craft.
19. The documents, Exhibit P-2 to P-4, do not claim that the course
in question has been recognized as equivalent to two-year Diploma in C
Art and Craft examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training
Department or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana
Education Department.
20. We have already noticed that one of the eligibility criteria for
appointment to the post of Arts and Crafts teacher as per the D
advertisement dated 20.07.2006 is a “two-year Diploma in Art and Craft
examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department
or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana Education
Department.” It was made clear by the Industrial Training and Vocational
Educational Department, Haryana, that diploma in Art and Craft Course E
by the Kurukshetra University is conducted through distance education
and that this course cannot be equated with two-year diploma in Art and
Craft Course awarded by the Haryana Industrial Training Department.
Recognition of the said Course by the State of Haryana, as held by the
High Court, is entirely different from its equivalence. When the experts
in the Education Department have held the diploma in Art and Craft by F
the Kurukshetra University is not equivalent to the two-year diploma in
Art and Craft awarded by the Haryana Industrial Training Department,
we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in equalizing
them.
21. In Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India & G
1
Ors , it was held that the question regarding equivalence of educational
qualifications is a technical question based on proper assessment and
evaluation of the relevant academic standards and practical attainments

1
(1975) 3 SCC 76 H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.

A of such qualifications. It was further held that where the decision of the
Government is based on the recommendation of an expert body, then
the Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by technical insights
necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence, would not lightly
disturb the decision of the Government unless it is based on extraneous
or irrelevant considerations or actuated mala fides or is irrational and
B
perverse or manifestly wrong.
22. In J. Ranga Swamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh
and Others,2 this Court held that it is not for the court to consider the
relevance of qualification prescribed for various posts.
C 23. In State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Lata Arun,3 this Court held
that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or
for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered
by the appropriate authority. It was held thus:
“13. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is clear that
D the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or
for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be
considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for courts to
decide whether a particular educational qualification should or
should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed
by the authority.”
E
24. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal
& Anr.,4 this Court has reiterated 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 a specific
order or resolution, duly published. Dealing specifically with whether a
F distance education course was equivalent to the degree of MA (English)
of the appellant university therein, the Court held that no material had
been produced before it to show that the distance education course had
been recognized as such.
25. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad
G & Ors.5, it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe
qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration

2
(1990) 1 SCC 288
3
(2002) 6 SCC 252
4
(2009) 1 SCC 610
H 5
(2019) 2 SCC 404
DEVENDER BHASKAR & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & 519
ORS. [S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]

the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of A
duties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up
to the acquisition of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither
expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the
equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given
qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as
B
recruiting authority, to determine.
26. Having regard to the above, in our view, the High Court has
erred in holding that the diploma/degree in Art and Craft given by the
Kurukshetra University is equivalent to two-year Diploma in Art and
Craft examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training
Department or diploma in Art and Craft conducted by Director, Industrial C
Training and Vocational Education, Haryana.
27. Resultantly, the appeal succeeds and it is accordingly allowed.
Consequently, the Judgment and Order of the High Court in C.W.P.
No.20630 of 2006 and connected matters, impugned herein, are set aside
and the writ petitions are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall D
stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed.

E

F

G

H