The determination of equivalence of educational qualifications for employment is the exclusive prerogative of the employer and falls outside the scope of judicial review, provided the decision is not perverse.

ORDER

This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs :

"(1) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire relevant record in respect of the petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

(2). This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to quash the impugned orders dt.27-5-2008 and 6-11-2008 contained in Annexure P-7, P-18 and P-19 respectively.

(3). This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service immediately with all consequential benefit.

(4). Any other relief deemed fit be also granted.

(5). Costs of the petition."

The facts as set out in the writ petition disclose that the petitioner was appointed as an LDC. The appointment was made on the basis of the mark-sheet contained in Annexure-P/19. The petitioner had qualified the Class-X examination from the Maharashtra Board of Secondary Education. Subsequently, it was found that the said qualification of the petitioner was not equivalent to the qualification prescribed under the Shkisha Sanhita for the purpose of appointment to the post of LDC. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner was initially placed under suspension and thereafter, the impugned order dated 06-11-2008 (Annexure-P/20) was passed, whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated.

The counsel for the petitioner contends that this is not a case where the mark-sheet of the petitioner was found to be forged; rather, the petitioner had duly qualified the Class-X Examination from the Maharashtra Board of Secondary Education. It is submitted that the said qualification was equivalent to the Higher Secondary Examination in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The counsel further contends that the said mark-sheet, which is placed on record as Annexure-P/19, reflects that it was issued by the Maharashtra Board of Secondary Education, Nagpur Division.

The counsel for the petitioner, while drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph No.5.13 of the petition, submits that the qualification possessed by the petitioner was equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the respondents and, therefore, there was no occasion to pass the impugned order against the petitioner. On the said premise, the counsel submits that the writ petition deserves to be allowed by quashing the impugned order.

The counsel for the State submits that the respondents have filed their return and, along with the same, an extract of the Shiksha Sanhita has been placed on record as Annexure-R/1. As per Annexure-R/1, the minimum qualification prescribed for appointment to the post was that of Higher Secondary Examination. The counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Sandeep Kumar vs. G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology Ghurdauri & Ors. [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8788-8789 of 2023]. It is accordingly submitted that since the petitioner did not possess the requisite eligibility criteria, the impugned order was rightly passed.

Having considered the submissions and upon perusal of the record, it is apparent that while seeking appointment as an LDC, the petitioner submitted his mark-sheet of the Class-X Examination, which is contained in Annexure-P/19, issued by the Maharashtra Board of Secondary Education, Nagpur. On the basis of the said mark-sheet, the petitioner was granted appointment. Subsequently, it was found by the respondents that the petitioner did not possess the qualification of Higher Secondary Examination. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The respondents have stated in the return that, as per the Shiksha Sanhita , the minimum qualification required was that of having passed the Higher Secondary Examination. In the present case, the petitioner had not passed the said Examination and, accordingly, the impugned order came to be issued.

The aforesaid contention adv