The court affirmed that equivalence in qualifications requires expert evaluation, and candidates must present supporting documentation to validate their claims of equivalency.

ORDER

The instant writ petition has been filed on the ground that, despite being allowed to participate in the Combined Technical Service Examination and securing 267.00 marks, with third rank overall, the petitioner was not permitted to participate in the physical certificate verification counselling, without assigning any reason.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the respondents dispute the petitioner's qualification namely a Master of Business Administration (MBA) in Marketing and Human Resources Management as not being equivalent to an MBA in Marketing, it is pertinent to note that the respondents had initially permitted the petitioner to apply for the post via an email dated 23.08.2024, stating that he was eligible. It is only through a counter statement that they claim the petitioner's degree is not equivalent. It is the further submission of the petitioner that having obtained a degree in both Marketing and Human Resources Management, which encompasses the required specialization in Marketing, the respondent's contention that it is not equivalent is against the spirit of the degree.

3. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission would strongly object the contentions of the petitioner and submitted that it is the primordial duty of the petitioner to submit an equivalence certificate, when the degree obtained by the candidate does not match the notified qualification.

4. It is the further submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the qualification prescribed in the notification is not determined by the Commission, and the qualification indicated in the notification is as per the user Department's requirement. Therefore, the Commission's role is limited.

5. The learned Standing counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shifana P.S. vs. State of Kerala and Others1, wherein the Apex Court has held that the candidate cannot argue because of the similarity of the nomenclature of the degree so as to justify that their degree is equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the notification. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both sides.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner secured 267.00 marks and ranked third overall. The sole issue now is whether the petitioner's qualification in the MBA (Marketing and Human Resources Management) is equivalent to the MBA (Marketing). As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, it is the petitioner's duty to submit an equivalence certificate to establish that his qualification meets the prescribed requirements.

8. In the case on hand, this Court is of the prima facie view that the

1. (2024) 8 SCC 309 petitioner's qualification in MBA (Marketing and Human Resources Management) appears to be equivalent to MBA in Marketing. However, determining equivalence is a matter for the Expert Committee to decide, and this Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Committee. Apart from that as per Shifana's case (cited supra), nomenclature will not be a decisive factor to consider equivalence.

9. Here we cant overlook the fact that the petitioner stood third in the overall raking. For public employment, we need best talent. The authority cannot lose such talent due to issues of equivalence on the date of notification, as in the recent years, the academician on research and effective deliberation provided multidisciplinary degree. However, the user department, without updating their rule by incorporating all new degrees, has been following outdated old degree, which a