HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4855/2020 Hiren Bhagat ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan & Ors ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Dev Potalia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pukhraj Suthar Mr. Tarun Joshi, through VC with Mr. Vikram Singh HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

07/01/2026

1. The present petition has been filed aggrieved of communication dated 20.05.2020 (Annexure-11) whereby the candidature of the petitioner stood rejected and he was denied appointment on the count that his Masters Degree in ‘Applied Mathematics’ was not in terms of the qualification prescribed vide Advertisement dated 28.03.2018 (Annexure-1).

2. Counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the Division Bench Judgment of Uttarakhand High Court in Rahul Saini Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.; Writ Petition (S/B) No. 583/2018 alongwith connected matters (decided on 12.02.2019) (Annexure-A/1) and Hon’ble Apex Court’s recent judgment in Laxmikant Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.; Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18907/2025 (decided on 04.12.2025) (2025 INSC 1385), submitted that the Post Graduate Degree in ‘Applied Mathematics’ as possessed by the petitioner was definitely equivalent to the Post Graduate Degree in ‘Mathematics’. The said fact was even verified by the University from which the petitioner acquired the said degree.

3. Counsel submitted that in terms of Office Order/Circular dated 18.10.2021 issued by the Chief Secretary of the State, respondent authorities ought to have placed the matter before the concerned Committee to decide whether the degrees are equivalent or not. Without undertaking the said exercise, the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature is totally illegal.

4. Heard the counsels.

5. In Laxmikant Sharma (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with an akin situation, observed that insisting solely on the title of the degree, without considering the actual curriculum, amounts to elevating form over substance. The Court observed that law does not compel such an interpretation.

6. In Rahul Saini (supra), the Court was dealing with almost an akin situation where the controversy was regarding the equivalence of a degree in ‘Mathematics’ and that in ‘Applied Mathematics’. Therein, the Court had vide an interim measure, directed the respondents to undertake the exercise of determining whether the two degrees are equivalent or not.

7. Keeping into consideration the above precedents, this Court deems it appropriate to get an expert opinion on the issue. This Court deems that proper also in view of Circular dated 18.10.2021 of the State itself whereby it has been provided that wherever an issue regarding equivalence of educational qualification arises, the matter ought to be placed before the competent committee.

8. The respondents are therefore directed to place the matter before the competent Committee for opinion on the issue – “Whether the Post Graduate Degree in ‘Applied Mathematics’ as possessed by the petitioner is equivalent to a Post Graduate Degree in ‘Mathematics’ as required in terms of the advertisement, or not?”

9. The Committee shall be under an obligation to take a decision on the issue while keeping into consideration the curriculum of the subjects as taught in both the courses.

10. Let the report of the Committee be placed on record within a period of six weeks from now.

11. Application (I.A. No. 01/2024) stands disposed of

12. List on 20.02.2026.

(REKHA BORANA),J

15-Mak/-