1 wp11391.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11391 OF 2010 Sanjivkumar Manikrao Kamble, Age: 37 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Mahavitran Sub Division, At/p Ter, Tq. & Dist.Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Estrella Batteries Expn. Building, Ground Floor, Plot No.1, Dharavi Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400019 & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11392 OF 2010 Sharad Digambar Shinde, Age: 31 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Mahavitran Sub Division, At/p Ter, Tq. & Dist.Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Estrella Batteries Expn. Building, Ground Floor, Plot No.1, Dharavi Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400019 & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. U.V. Jawalikar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the respondents. ... 2 wp11391.10 CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 28TH APRIL, 2011 PER COURT : By way of these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 07-12-2010 by which the claim of the petitioners have been rejected regarding the consideration for the appointment to the post of Upper Division Clerk. 2. As per Internal Notification dated 02-11-2010, pre-requisite qualification which is prescribed for the said post is Degree of a recognised University and the candidate should have passed the examination of MS-CIT (Maharashtra State Certificate in Information Technology). The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 16-12-2010 granted ad interim relief by observing that prima facie, the petitioners have completed Course of "Computer Operation with M.S. Office", which is recognised by the State of Maharashtra, and is of a longer duration than "MS-CIT". On the 3 wp11391.10 basis of ad interim order, the petitioners have appeared for written examination. 3. Mr. V.D. Godbharle, the learned A.G.P. states that the State is not concern with the internal notification of the Maharashtra State Electrical Distribution Co. Limited. 4. The learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 states that since the petitioners are not qualified as per internal notification, they cannot be considered for such appointment. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing in the matter. Since it is not in dispute that the petitioners are not possessing the qualification of "MS-CIT" as required, which is pre-requisites for the post of U.D.C., no relief can be given to the petitioners. Since it is not in dispute that the petitioners have not passed "MS-CIT", which is one of the condition for getting appointment of U.D.C., simply because the 4 wp11391.10 petitioners are holding higher qualification, it cannot be said that they are eligible as the question of equivalence has to be decided by the Department and not by this Court. It is well settled preposition of law that the Court is not an expert body to find equivalence. It is required to be noted that even in the notification, it is not prescribed that the candidate is eligible if he is holding any equivalent certificate or has passed equivalent examination. Once the notification is very clear and when the petitioners are not holding pre-requisites for the post of U.D.C., in our opinion, the petitions are misconceived. This Court by way of ad interim relief allowed the petitioners to appear for the written examination itself, cannot said to be a favourable ground in favour of the petitioners. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [ P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] sut/Apr11