Absence of government equivalence order precludes judicial determination of degree parity for public employment recruitment.

The appellant applied for the post of Lecturer in Government Polytechnic Colleges and Special Institutions pursuant to a recruitment notification dated 27.11.2019.

Her candidature was rejected by the Teachers Recruitment Board on the grounds that her B.E. degree in Aeronautical Engineering was not equivalent to the required B.E. degree in Mechanical Engineering.

The appellant challenged this rejection in W.P.No. 21415 of 2022, which was dismissed on 15.02.2024.

The appellant subsequently filed this intra-Court appeal, contending that Aeronautical and Thermal Engineering fall under the Department of Mechanical Engineering and should be treated as equivalent.

1. Whether a B.E. degree in Aeronautical Engineering and an M.E. degree in Thermal Engineering can be held equivalent to a degree in Mechanical Engineering for the purpose of recruitment.

2. Whether the Court, in exercise of judicial review, can declare equivalence between degrees in the absence of a Government Order.

The court applied the principle that the grant of equivalence between degrees for public employment is the exclusive province of the Government, acting upon the recommendations of the Equivalent Committee, an expert body constituted under the rules.

It further relied on G.O.No.270, Higher Education Department, dated 03.12.2019, which explicitly states that B.E. Aeronautical Engineering is not equivalent to Mechanical Engineering.

The Court reasoned that equivalence is a technical determination to be made by an expert body (the Equivalent Committee) and not by the judiciary.

Since the Government had already issued a specific order (G.O.No.270) declaring that the two degrees are not equivalent, the Court cannot exercise powers of judicial review to override this expert finding.

Furthermore, regarding the appellant’s postgraduate degree in Thermal Engineering, the Court found that because her underlying undergraduate degree was not equivalent to Mechanical Engineering, she was ineligible for weightage marks for the PG degree.

Finally, the Court noted that the appellant secured 67.06788 marks, which was below the cut-off mark of 69.43575 for her category (BCM-W), meaning she did not fall within the zone of consideration regardless of the equivalence issue.

The Court affirmed the Writ Court’s order and dismissed the Writ Appeal, concluding that there was no merit to the challenge because the appellant lacked the prescribed qualification and failed to meet the cut-off marks. All connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.