Judicial review cannot determine equivalence of educational qualifications prescribed by the recruiting authority.

The applicant applied for the post of Danger Building Workmen (DBW) in the Ordnance Factory under Advertisement No. 10201/11/0209/1718

He possessed a National Trade Certificate (NTC) in "Process Plant Maintenance" and had completed modules in "Operator Chemical Plant"

Although the applicant passed the written and trade tests, his candidature was rejected on 06.08.2020 because he did not possess the specific requisite qualification—an NTC/NAC in "Attendant Operator Chemical Plant" (AOCP) or "Process Plant Operator" (PPO)

The applicant challenged this rejection, claiming his qualifications were equivalent to the required trades based on a 2016 Directorate General of Training (DGT) letter issued under the RTI Act regarding Railway Board recruitments

The respondents contended that the DGT clarified on 12.10.2018 that equivalence for the AOCP trade requires a specific two-year duration comprising Basic Training, Advance Module, and Specialized Module, which the applicant lacked

1. Whether the applicant possessed the requisite educational qualifications as stipulated in the recruitment advertisement

2. Whether the Tribunal can exercise judicial review to declare the applicant's trade certificates as equivalent to the qualifications prescribed by the employer

The court primarily applied the principle that the prescription of eligibility criteria and educational qualifications is the sole prerogative of the employer

It relied on J. Ranga Swamy v. State of A.P., holding that courts cannot consider the relevance of qualifications for specific posts

Under Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal, equivalence is a technical academic matter that cannot be assumed without a specific order

Furthermore, per Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade and Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, judicial review cannot expand the ambit of prescribed qualifications or decide equivalence, as these are matters for the recruiting authority and specialized bodies

The Tribunal found that the recruitment advertisement explicitly required NTC/NAC in AOCP or PPO trades

The applicant’s certificate in "Process Plant Maintenance" did not match the specific requirement

The Tribunal noted that the 2016 DGT letter relied upon by the applicant was specific to the Railway Board and had not been adopted by the Ordnance Factory Board

The court reasoned that every government department has the autonomy to set its own service conditions and qualifications based on the nature of the job

Following the precedent that "equivalence" is a technical matter, the Tribunal held it lacked the expertise to determine if the applicant’s training was at par with the required AOCP trade

Since the applicant failed to produce evidence that the respondents had officially recognized his certificates as equivalent for the post of DBW, the rejection was deemed legally sound

The court answered both issues in the negative, concluding that authorities are duty-bound to strictly follow the educational qualifications stipulated in the recruitment notification and that the issue of equivalence falls outside the domain of judicial review

No relief was granted, and parties were left to bear their own costs