- (1.) The special appeal has arisen from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23 December 2014. The learned Single Judge has recorded the submission urged by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in both the writ petition, upon which, the judgment was delivered that the issue was covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Anand Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and Others ( Writ Petition No.65506 of 2010) and Vijay Kumar Kamley Vs. State of U.P. and Another (Writ Petition No.8736 of 2011) , rendered on 1 February 2012.
(2.) The appellants applied in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (Commission) for filling up posts in the Subordinate Agriculture Services, Grade - III through Technical Assistant Group - 'C' Examination - 2013. The minimum educational qualification required in clause 11 of the notification were as follows:- "11. Educational qualification: Till last date for submitting the applications the candidates must possess a Bachelor's Degree in Agriculture from a recognized Institution or University."
(3.) According to the appellants, they have passed the B.Tech. in Agricultural Engineering. The issue as to whether the B.Tech in Agricultural Engineering is equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree in Agriculture was considered by a Division Bench in its decision dated 1 February 2012 in Anand Kumar Rai (supra) along with Vijay Kumar Kamley (supra). The Division Bench, after noting the view of the Commission and considering the syllabus for the two degree courses held as follows:- "8. Prima facie, without going into the details, we find that the syllabus for 'Agriculture', for which qualifications in the prescribed code is B.Sc. (Agriculture) in Item No.1 is different than the Agricultural Engineering in Item No.33. 9. The Courts do not possess the expertise to compare the equivalence of educational qualifications, to make comparisons for eligibility for the posts in the statutory rules. 10. In State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Lata Arun, 2002 AIR(SC) 2642 the Supreme Court held as under:- "12. From the ratio of the decision noted above it is clear 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 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." 11. In Urmila devi v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2012 90 AllLR 314, the Court held in para 13 as follows:- "13. The equivalence to the examinations can only be allowed by the State Government after consulting experts looking into various factors such as the teaching facilities, syllabus and the other such candidates. The Courts do not have any authority to do the job of experts and grant such equivalence." 12. On the aforesaid facts, we do not propose to interfere and also do not find any error in the decision taken by the U.P. Public Services Commission in not considering the petitioners eligible for the advertised posts.";