IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1441 of 2009 Basant Kumar . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2/ 01/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is stated to be an I.Sc. in ‘Inland Fisheries’ claims to be considered for appointment on the post of Lab Assistant. He questions the qualification prescribed in the appointment Rules as I.Sc. (Biology) for the post of Lab Assistant and Skilled Fisherman. The Court does not have the jurisdiction to direct amendment of rules regulating appointment. That is the privilege of the Legislature/Executive as the case may be, especially when the rules have been framed under Article-309 of the Constitution. The Court can only test the validity of the Rules on a challenge laid out on specified grounds. There is no challenge to the validity of the Rules. The issue of equivalence of qualifications for employment is a matter for the employer to decide based on the course content of the two, the needs of the employer, the nature of the work to be performed etc. It is not the jurisdiction of the Court to rule upon the 2 equivalence of a qualification and thereby substitute its own opinion for that of the employer. In Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, 1986 Supp SCC 740) it has been held at paragraph-7 as follows:-: “7………It is for each University to decide the question of equivalence and it would not be right for the Court to sit in judgment over the decision of the University because it is not a matter on which the Court possesses any expertise. The University is best fitted to decide whether any examination held by a University outside the State is equivalent to an examination held within the State having regard to the courses, the syllabus, the quality of teaching or instruction and the standard of examination. It is an academic question in which the Court should not disturb the decision taken by the University…….” There is no merit in the writ application to that extent. However, if the petitioner is so advised, he may represent when the issue of equivalence of the qualification is a matter to be more appropriately decided by the authorities in their best discretion. The application is disposed with the aforesaid observations. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)