THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P. No.31802 of 1997 DATED: 04.02.2008 Between:- L.Jayalakshmi. … PETITIONERS AND A.P.College Service Commission rep. By its Secretary, Gagan Vihar, 1st floor, Nampally, Hyderabad and others. …….. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.31802 of 1998 O R D E R: Petitioner, a Science Graduate (Technology) in oils, soaps and detergents from Nagarjuna University, applied for appointment to the post of Associate lecturer in the first respondent-College. Along with the application she also submitted a certificate issued by the V.R.S. & Y.R.N. College of Technology, Chirala, to the effect that the qualification possessed by her was equivalent to that of B.E./B.Tech in Chemical Engineering (Oil Technology). On the ground that she was not permitted to appear for selection, she invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. Pursuant to the interim order of this Court, she was permitted to participate in the written examination held on 30-11- 1997. Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, would fairly state that, subsequently, the interim order passed by this Court was vacated. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that, since the qualification possessed by the petitioner is equivalent to that of B.E./B.Tech in Chemical Engineering (Oil Technology), failure on the part of the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment to the post of Associate lecturer is arbitrary and illegal. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is stated that the first respondent had requested the Commissioner of Technical Education, Hyderabad, vide letter dated 04-12-1997, to clarify whether candidates, who possessed a degree in B.Sc (Technology) in oils, soaps and detergents from Nagarjuna University, could be considered as equivalent to B.E./B.Tech in Chemical Engineering (Oil Technology). The Commissioner of Technical Education, Hyderabad, vide his letter dated 12-12-1997, clarified that candidates, who possessed a B.Sc. (Technology) degree in oils, soaps & detergents from Nagarjuna University could not be considered as equivalent to B.E./B.Tech in Chemical Engineering (Oil Technology) for the purpose of selection and appointment to the post of Associate lecturer in Chemical Engineering (Oil Technology) in Government Polytechnics in the State. The first respondent would state that the petitioner is not qualified to hold the post of Associate lecturer in Government Polytechnics, as she does not possess the necessary qualifications. While Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the qualification possessed by the petitioner is equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the notification whereby applications were invited for appointment to the post of Associate lecturer in Government Polytechnics, it is well settled that this Court would not, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, determine equivalence of educational qualifications or whether the qualification required to be possessed by a candidate for appointment to a post is equivalent to the qualification which she possesses. It is not in dispute that the qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Associate lecturer in Government Polytechnics is B.E./B.Tech in Chemical Engineering (Oil Technology). The appointing authority has held the qualification which the petitioner possesses of a B.Sc degree (Technology) in oils, soaps & detergents from Nagarjuna University is not equivalent to B.E./B.Tech in Chemical Engineering (Oil Technology). Neither does this Court have the necessary expertise to adjudicate the equivalence of educational qualifications nor are these matters for judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Viewed from any angle, this Court cannot hold that the qualification possessed by the petitioner is equivalent to the qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Associate lecturers in Chemical Engineering (Oil Technology) in Government Polytechnics. As a result the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________ 04-02- 2008 usd