Absence of specific equivalence clause precludes treating Army-issued graduate certificates as University degrees in commercial selections.

The Petitioner, an Ex-Serviceman, applied for a "Service Provider" position for a Company Owned Company Operated (COCO) retail outlet of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) following an advertisement dated 09.05.2024

After an interview on 25.09.2024, the Petitioner was ranked 3rd in the Merit Panel with 74.5 marks

The Petitioner challenged the selection process, alleging he was awarded 15 marks (10th-pass level) instead of 21 marks (Graduate level) despite holding a "Graduation Equivalent" certificate from the Indian Army

He further claimed the interview process was mechanical and contrary to the selection guidelines

The Opposite Parties contended that the guidelines specifically required "Graduation" and that equivalence cannot be assumed for commercial selections

1. Whether the selection process and the awarding of marks by the Selection Committee were conducted in consonance with the prescribed guidelines

2. Whether an Army-issued "Graduation Equivalent" certificate must be treated as equivalent to a University Degree in the absence of an express provision in the recruitment guidelines

The Court applied the principle that judicial review under Article 226 is limited to the decision-making process, avoiding interference in the subjective assessment of merit by experts

It relied on Tata Cellular v. Union of India, establishing that government bodies have commercial freedom to choose the best person provided the process is not arbitrary or mala fide

Regarding educational qualifications, the Court followed Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Unnikrishnan v. Union of India, which hold that equivalency is a technical academic matter that cannot be implied or assumed by Courts unless the rules expressly provide for it

The Court reasoned that the Selection Committee is an expert body tasked with evaluating candidates on subjective parameters like communication skills and business environment; as such, its marks cannot be appealed unless there is evidence of mala fides or procedural illegality, which the Petitioner failed to provide

Regarding the qualification, the Court found that Clause 5 of the Guidelines specifically prioritized "Graduation"

Since the guidelines did not expressly recognize "Graduation Equivalent" certificates from the Army for this specific commercial engagement, the Corporation was justified in not awarding the higher marks

Furthermore, the Court noted that even if the Petitioner were granted the additional marks, his merit ranking would not have improved sufficiently to make him the first empanelled candidate, thus showing no material prejudice

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, ruling that no illegality or arbitrariness was established. All prior interim orders were vacated