Based on the provided legal document, the following key legal principles and points emerge:

1. Judicial Review on Degree Equivalence: The court emphasizes that the determination of whether a degree is equivalent to the prescribed qualification in a recruitment process is a technical and expert matter. Such decisions are to be made by specialized bodies with requisite knowledge and expertise, not by the courts (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

2. Role of Expert Bodies: Decisions regarding the equivalence of educational qualifications should be based on specific orders or resolutions issued by recognized expert bodies, and such decisions are to be respected unless shown to be based on extraneous, irrelevant, or mala fide considerations (!) (!) (!) (!) .

3. Court’s Limited Jurisdiction: The court refrains from substituting its judgment for that of expert bodies on technical academic matters like equivalence of degrees. It is only when such decisions are arbitrary, irrational, or manifestly wrong that courts may intervene (!) (!) (!) .

4. Consistency and Fairness in Recruitment: The rules and qualifications fixed in the advertisement at the time of initiation of the recruitment process are binding. Midstream changes or relaxations of eligibility criteria, including claims of equivalence, are not permissible unless explicitly provided in the recruitment rules or through a corrigendum (!) (!) .

5. Non-Application of Judicial Power to Alter Rules: The power of the court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution does not extend to rewriting or modifying the eligibility criteria set by the employer or the recruitment authority. The criteria are to be applied strictly as per the advertisement or rules existing at the time of recruitment (!) (!) (!) .

6. Prohibition of Relaxation of Qualifications: The authority responsible for recruitment does not have the inherent power to relax essential qualifications unless such power is explicitly provided for. Relaxation, if permitted, must be exercised within the bounds of the rules and with proper reasons recorded (!) (!) (!) .

7. Implication of Nomenclature and Recognition: Different nomenclature for qualifications (e.g., PGDM vs. MBA) does not automatically imply equivalence. Recognition by relevant authorities (like AICTE or UGC) and specific orders are necessary to establish equivalence (!) (!) (!) .

8. Effect of Midstream Changes: Changing rules or eligibility criteria after the commencement of the selection process, or without proper corrigendum, is impermissible and can invalidate the process or appointment (!) (!) (!) .

9. Role of Recognition and Accreditation: Recognition by bodies like AICTE or UGC is crucial but does not automatically confer equivalence. The decision on whether a qualification from a particular institution or through a specific mode (e.g., distance learning) is equivalent to the prescribed qualification must be made by the competent expert body, not courts (!) (!) (!) .

10. Fair Hearing and Due Process: Candidates who are appointed or considered on the basis of claims of equivalence must be given a fair hearing and proper opportunity to present their case before adverse actions are taken (!) .

In summary, the legal framework underscores that the determination of educational qualification equivalence is a specialized, technical process to be handled by competent authorities. Courts should exercise restraint and avoid substituting their judgment, especially when the recruitment rules and advertisement specify particular qualifications. Any deviation or mid-process alteration of criteria without proper authority or procedure can be deemed illegal and liable to be set aside.