The court established that the determination of qualifications for public employment is solely within the purview of the state, and judicial review cannot be used to challenge or redefine these qualifications.

ORDER

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has done BUMS i.e Bachelor in Unani Medicine & Surgery and submits that as the qualification for District Programme Co-ordinator-MMSCBY mentioned in the advertisement is MBBS/BHMS/BAMS, the petitioner's qualification also should be considered as he is Bachelor in one of the alternate medicines similar to homeopathy.

2. This Court in SBCWP No. 10342/2020: Raghvendra Agarwal & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. considered the similar issue where the petitioners therein demanded that their qualification of Homeopathy, Pharmaceutical and Unani should be included for the purpose of appointment as Community Health Officers and this court reached to the conclusion as under:-

"(20) In the opinion of this Court, a judicial review of an advertisement issued by the State would be limited to the aspect as to whether the said advertisement issued by the authority is in accordance with the rules laid down by the concerned State authority or the appointing authority."

3. This Court rejected the contention relying upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Mukul Kumar Tyagi Vs. State of UP & Ors. reported in (2020) 4 SCC 86 and in Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 404 wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:-

"26. The prescription of qualification for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine."

4. Thus, it is apparent that this Court would not substitute any educational qualification which has been laid down by the State as it is an exclusive domain of the employer to lay down the qualification for a particular post. The petitioner's claim for equivalence qualification cannot be a subject matter of judicial review and this court does not have the expertise to hold a particular qualification as equivalent to that of another qualification.

5. Keeping in view thereto, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

6. All pending applications shall also stand disposed of.