Courts cannot substitute expert bodies in determining academic equivalence for public appointments.

The appellants applied for Work Inspector posts notified on 2 February 2024. At counselling and verification, the authorities found that they held Diplomas in Engineering (Electronics and Communication), whereas the notification required a Diploma in Civil, Mechanical, or Electrical Engineering from an institution approved by the Government of Tamil Nadu

The appellants relied on G.O. (Ms.) No. 178, Higher Education (J1) Department, dated 17 July 2015, concerning equivalence involving certain bachelor’s degrees. The Single Judge dismissed their writ petitions, and the appellants filed these appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent

Whether the appellants’ Diplomas in Engineering (Electronics and Communication) met the educational qualification prescribed for Work Inspector posts

Whether the equivalence stated in G.O. (Ms.) No. 178, dated 17 July 2015, applied to the appellants’ diplomas and could support their eligibility

Whether the Court could itself compare academic subjects or substitute its view for that of the expert bodies responsible for determining equivalence

The recruitment notification governs the educational qualifications required for appointment to the advertised posts

Equivalence of academic qualifications is to be assessed by the competent expert committee, which compares the subjects and other relevant academic features; the Government must then issue an order granting equivalence before the qualification may be accepted for appointment to a government post

Courts should not substitute their own views for those of domain experts or undertake academic subject comparisons in judicial review

The notification required a diploma in Civil, Mechanical, or Electrical Engineering, while the appellants held diplomas in Electronics and Communication

The cited Government Order addressed equivalence involving B.E. degrees, including B.E. (Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering), and did not concern a Diploma in Electronics and Communication; it therefore did not establish the appellants’ eligibility

The Court also declined to compare the academic subjects itself, holding that equivalence was for the expert committee and Government to determine

As the appellants lacked the qualification specified in the notification, rejection of their candidatures was not perverse

Both writ appeals were dismissed, with no order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed