IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.55 of 2009 Biswa Bijay Singh s/o Sachidanand Singh, resident of village Burhi Paimar, P.S. – Gaya, P.S. Muffasil , District – Gaya …….. Appellant Versus 1. The Union Of India , through its Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi 2. The Director General Railway, Protection Force, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 3. The Chief Security Commissioner, Eastern Central Railway, Hazipur, Vaishali 4. The Chairman-cum-Senior Commandant, Eastern Central Railway, Hajipur 5. The Commandant, Railway Protection Force, Eastern Central Railway, Hazipur ……… Respondents For the Appellant: Mr. Girjanand Prasad, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. H.P.Singh, Advocate ----------- 2 03-02-2009 Writ petitioner – appellant aggrieved by the order dated 17th November, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC. No.7194 of 2007 dismissing the writ application, has preferred this appeal under Clause – 10 of the Letters Patent. Writ petitioner – appellant preferred the writ application , inter alia, praying for a direction to the respondent Railway Board to treat qualification of Madhyama granted by Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board as equivalent to the qualification of matriculation of Bihar - 2 - School Examination Board. This did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. Whether a particular qualification is equivalent to another qualification is a matter of policy and this court in exercise of its power of review will not substitute the policy. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the Railway has decided to treat Madhyama qualification as equivalent to the qualification of Bihar School Examination Board. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge did not err in dismissing the writ application. In our opinion, the view taken by him, is in conformity with the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dhirendra Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2008(1) PLJR 583, in which it has been held as follows: “Whether the rules governing recruitment for any post, in eligibility criterion prescribed for the post must include other equivalent qualification is a matter of legislative policy and not for this Court to decide. Even where rules provide for alternate to main and substantive qualification by recognizing equivalent qualification to be taken into consideration, the question of considering any qualification to be - 3 - equivalent to another qualification, is a matter of expert body to decide. Therefore, it is inept for this Court to enter into that territory and decide upon equivalence. From a plain reading of the provision contained in 1983 rules, it would appear that various teachers’ training courses referred therein are training qualifications of different grades and cannot by any means be equivalent with each other, a priori. It hardly needs an argument that unless the matter is examined by any expert, ordinarily, a diploma course is not equivalent for a degree. Likewise, a certificate by itself is not equivalent to a degree or diploma in the subject.” We do not find any merit in the appeal. It is dismissed in limine. Neyaz/- C. K. Prasad, ACJ. S. K. Sharma, J.