JUDGMENT :

AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

1. The appeal raises a challenge to the impugned judgement dated 4th July, 2018 whereby the appellants had come up contending that they were in possession of a Post Graduate Qualification that was required for the purpose of being considered for selection and appointment as Assistant Professor in Botany and Zoology.

2. Their contention was that they have a degree in Life Science which includes the aforesaid subjects and, therefore, the definition is inclusive. The rejection of their candidatures by the Commission is contrary to law.

3. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that since the appellants have not challenged the advertisement, the issue becomes academic, but at the same time, the learned Single Judge proceeded to evolve a method suggesting to strike a balance between competing interests for instructions in the subjects of Botany and Zoology. The learned Single Judge then went on to classify 10% of the posts of Botany and Zoology that were subject matter of advertisement to be kept aside for which a final decision was to rest with the State Government as indicated therein. The Chairman of the Commission was directed to examine the claim of the candidates of the stream of Bio-Technology accordingly.

4. The learned Single Judge further went on to give liberty to the writ petitioners to file a petition for revival of the same petition if the posts for Bio-Technology and other allied subjects is not sanctioned by the State Government within a period of six months.

5. We have considered the submissions raised at length and what we find is that this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not have assumed an equivalence of curriculum for the purpose of equating the qualifications possessed by the appellants with that as required under the advertisement. It is for the expert body, i.e., either the employer or the Commission to take a decision in the matter for deciding such an equivalence. We have come across the judgement of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Writ Petition (S) No.3169 of 2015 (Reshamlal Pradhan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission) where the learned Single Judge traversed the entire law laid down by the Apex Court on this issue. The same is extracted hereinunder which we adopt to support our conclusion hereinabove:-

15. Meaning of "relevant subject" for appointment on a post with reference to eligibility condition for recruitment came to be considered by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput v. Gulbarga University represented by its Registrar and others (2014) 3 SCC 767, in which Their Lordships have answered the question holding that post-graduate degree in "relevant subject" in the context would mean post-graduate degree in which the candidate has applied for recruitment to teach a particular subject and observed in paragraphs 21 and 22 as under: -

"21. As is evident from the advertisement, applications were invited for filling up various posts in different subjects including the post of Lecturer in MCA. The advertisement requires post-graduate degree in the relevant subject. The relevant subject would, therefore, in the context of appointment to the post of Lecturer, mean postgraduate degree in MCA. In our opinion, for appointment to the post of Lecturer, Masters degree in the Mathematics is not the relevant subject. The advertisement requires Masters degree in the relevant subject and not appropriate subject. In the present case, the Board of appointment has not stated that post-graduate degree in Mathematics is the relevant subject for MCA but in sum and substance it is equivalent to a post-graduate degree in MCA for the reason that Mathematics is one of the subjects taught in MCA. This, in our opinion, was beyond the power of the Board of appointment.

22. It shall not make any difference even if Mathematic