JUDGMENT J.M.L. Singha, J. - This appeal is directed against the decision dated 13th December 1973 passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ No. 5291 of 1971. 2. The facts in so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus :- The petitioner appellant was appointed as chief Artist and Designer in the Government Press, U. P., Lucknow on selection by the Public Service Commission. He was made permanent on that post with effect from 1st April 1962. In 1968 the post of Chief Artist and Designer was re-designated as Deputy Superintendent (Designs), but that post was declared to be ex-cadre post, as it was not included in the U. P. Specialists Service (Government Press Officers) Rules, 1931. The respondent No. 2 was appointed as Assistant Superintendent in 1955 and he was confirmed on that post with effect from 1st April 1960. In 1961 he was promoted to the post of the Joint Superintendent and was confirmed in the year 1964. In April 1967 the post of Superintendent, Printing and Stationery fell vacant. The State Government first decided to fill that post by direct recruitment but later, on a representation of the officers of the department, the State Government decided to fill that post by departmental promotion on the basis of merit. A departmental selection committee was constituted, which consisted of one representative of the Public Service Commission as its Chairman and the Secretary and the Special Secretary of the Industries Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 were candidates for appointment to the post of the Superintendent. The selection committee, after considering the cases of both of them recommended the respondent No. 2 for appointment to the said post. The State Government accepted the recommendation and appointed respondent No. 2 on the said post, vide order dated 19th May 1971. Feeling aggrieved against that the appellant filed writ petition No. 5291 of 1971. The petition was contested on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh as well as by respondent No. 2. The learned Single Judge, on a consideration of the entire material before him, came to the conclusion that there was no illegality in the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Superintendent, Printing and Stationery and accordingly dismissed the petition. The petition was contested on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh as well as by respondent No. 2. The learned Single Judge, on a consideration of the entire material before him, came to the conclusion that there was no illegality in the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Superintendent, Printing and Stationery and accordingly dismissed the petition. It is against that order that the present appeal is directed. 3. It is the common case of the parties that appointment to the post of Superintendent, Printing and Stationery was to be made in accordance with the "United Provinces Specialists Service (Government Press Officers) Rules" of 1931, hereafter to be called the rules. A copy of those rules forms Annexure 2 of the Writ petition. The controversy between the parties revolves around the interpretation of Rule 4, sub- cl. (ii) which reads as under :? "Technical ,Qualifications : No one shall be ELIGIBLE for appointment to any of the aforesaid posts unless- (a) he is a qualified printer with practical experience in printing work; and (b) he possesses a knowledge of a costing system of accounts." 4. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant before us, as also before the learned Single Judge, was that the expression "qualified printer" occurring in para (a) of sub-cl. (ii) of Clause 4 of the Rules means a printer who has obtained a certificate, degree or diploma in printing technology from any recognised institution either inside the country or outside the country. It was further contended that the respondent No. 2 did not hold any certificate, degree or diploma in printing technology from any institute whatsoever, and, consequently, he was not a qualified printer within the meaning of that expression as used in the rules and was therefore, not eligible for appointment. As opposed to this, the contention raised on behalf of State of Uttar Pradesh (respondent No. 1) as well as on behalf of respondent No. 2 was that the expression "qualified printer" should not be interpreted to mean only a person who holds a certificate, degree or diploma in printing technology from any institute but that it would also include such other person who may not be holding any certificate, degree or diploma and yet may be well versed in the science of Printing Technology. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that, in that view of the matter, the respondent No. 2 was a qualified printer eligible for appointment to the post of Superintendent, Printing & Stationery. 5. Having given our careful thought to the contentions raised on either side we feel inclined to accept the interpretation of the expression "qualified printer" as made before us on behalf of the respondents and we give below our reasons for the same. The expression "qualified printer" has not been defined anywhere in the rules. It should,therefore, be assigned the ordinary dictionary meaning. The learned Single Judge has already noticed the meaning given to the word "qualified" in the New International Dictionary, in the Webster Dictionary and in the Oxford Dictionary. The word "qualified" according to the New International Dictionary inter alia, means competent or eligible. According to the Oxford Dictionary the word, inter alia, means possessed of qualities, endowed with qualities, or possessed of accomplishments which fit one for a certain end. We have further referred to the Universal English Dictionary by H. C. Wild, Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary and Shorter Oxford Dictionary in order to ascertain the meaning assigned to the word "qualified" therein. According to the Universal English Dictionary, the word means competent, fit, a person well qualified for his position." According to Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, the word, inter alia, means competent or eligible. According to Shorter Oxford Dictionary, the word "qualify", inter alia, means to make fir or competent for doing or to do something. It would thus appear that if the expression "qualified printer" is understood in its ordinary and literal sense it means nothing except that a person must be endowed with the qualities of an efficient printer. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the expression "qualified printer", in the setting in which it occurs in the rules, should be interpreted to mean only person who has qualified himself as a printer by obtaining a certificate, degree or diploma given by a recognised institution imparting training in printing technology. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the expression "qualified printer", in the setting in which it occurs in the rules, should be interpreted to mean only person who has qualified himself as a printer by obtaining a certificate, degree or diploma given by a recognised institution imparting training in printing technology. While it is true that a person who has obtained a certificate, degree or diploma from a recognised institution would very well fall within the scope of the expression "qualified printer", there appears no justification for taking the view that any person who does not possess such a certificate, degree or diploma would not be covered by the expression "qualified printer", howsoever competent, skillful or experienced he may be in the science of printing technology. If the intention of the framers of the rule were that only those persons who possessed a certificate, a degree or a diploma from a recognised institute of technology would be eligible for the post specified in the rules, there would be no difficulty in their explicitly stating so in Rule 4. During the arguments addressed on both sides we were referred to a number of statutory rules relating to other services framed by the State of U. P. in order to show that where it was intended to restrict the eligibility of the candidates to those persons only who possessed a certificate, a degree or a diploma, it was explicitly stated in the rules. It may not be out of place to make a more precise reference to some of those rules. In the "United Provinces Subordinate Medical Services" Rules of 1932 it was explicitly stated in Rule 11, which prescribed the technical qualifications of the candidates, that he must have obtained the diploma of the Agra Medical School recognised by the United Provinces State Medical Faculty or a degree in medicine or surgery of the Lucknow University and must have been registered by the United Provinces Medical Council under the United Provinces Medical Act of 1917. In "the United Provinces Educational Services, Class I Rules, 1945 it was explicitly stated in Rule 9, which prescribed the qualifications of the candidates, that no person shall be eligible for direct recruitment unless he has obtained a post-graduate degree of a university established by law in the United Provinces etc." Rule 9 of "the United Provinces Medical Service Rules" of 1950 prescribing the technical qualifications of the candidates, inter alia, states that they must have obtained the M. B., B. S. degree of he Lucknow University. Learned counsel for the respondents referred us to a handbook entitled "A Manual of Information Relating to Employment in Government Service in Uttar Pradesh through the Public Service Commission". This booklet contains a synopsis of the qualification prescribed for candidates for the various examinations held by the Public Service Commission of Uttar Pradesh. These qualifications are contained in Appendix A. A perusal thereof also shows that wherever it was so intended it was explicitly stated that a candidate must possess a certificate, a degree or a diploma. If the State Government, while framing the U. P. Provincial Service (Government Press Officers) Rules intended that only those persons would be eligible for the post specified therein who may have obtained a certificate, degree or diploma from any recognised institution, they could conveniently say so in the same manner in which it was stated in the other rules. The fact that while the Government was alive of the necessity of stating such a fact explicitly in the other rules framed by it and yet did not state anything in these rules in order to indicate that only those persons would be eligible who possessed a certificate, degree or diploma from a recognised institute clearly indicates that the Government did not have any such intention and on the contrary wanted that the posts should be open not only to those who possessed certificates, degree or diplomas but also to those who are otherwise found to be skillful, competent or efficient printers. 7. There is yet another circumstances leading support to the view that the expression "qualified printer" was not intended to restrict the choice only to those persons who possessed certificates, degrees or diplomas in printing technology. As already indicated earlier, the rules were framed in 1931. 7. There is yet another circumstances leading support to the view that the expression "qualified printer" was not intended to restrict the choice only to those persons who possessed certificates, degrees or diplomas in printing technology. As already indicated earlier, the rules were framed in 1931. According to respondent No. 2, no institution existed in any part of the country at that time imparting training in printing technology. However, according to the appellant such art institution was run by the Madras Government and was in existence at the time the rules came into force. Accepting for a moment that one single institution impacting training in printing technology existed in the entire country at the time the rules were framed, it is quite likely that the said single institution could not feed the requirements of the whole country and therefore the framers of the rules considered it worthwhile to frame the rule in manner so that it took within its ambit not only persons who possessed certificates, degrees or diplomas from a recognised institution, but that it could also include such other persons who may otherwise be found to be skillful, competent and efficient printers. 8. It is also worthy of notice that the expression "qualified printer" was being interpreted and understood in the manner indicated by us since quite a long time before the dispute giving rise to the present petition arose. The rules in question apply alike to the posts of Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent and Assistant Superintendents. According to the counter affidavit dated 28th October 1971, sworn by the respondent No. 2, 37 appointments were made to the aforesaid posts since the commencement of the rules. Out of those 37 appointments 16 were in an officiating capacity and 21 on permanent basis. It has been sworn by the respondent No. 2 that out of the 16 officiating appointments only candidates had diplomas in printing technology while the rest did not. He has further sworn that out of the 21 permanent appointments 8 did not hold any diploma in printing technology. The names and particulars of all those persons have been disclosed by him in Annexure E to the said counter affidavit. In reply to this it was stressed before us on behalf of the petitioner that no person who did not possess a certificate, a degree or a diploma was appointed to the post of the Superintendent. The names and particulars of all those persons have been disclosed by him in Annexure E to the said counter affidavit. In reply to this it was stressed before us on behalf of the petitioner that no person who did not possess a certificate, a degree or a diploma was appointed to the post of the Superintendent. That does not, however, assist the appellant, for the rules did not apply only to the post of Superintendent but as well apply to the posts of Deputy Superintendent and Assistant Superintendents. The fact that a good number of persons possessing no certificate, degree or diploma were in the past appointed to the posts governed by those rules clearly indicates that the expression "qualified printer" was interpreted and understood also to include those persons who did not possess any certificate, degree or diploma but were otherwise found to be well versed in the science of printing technology. 9. The fact that recruitment to the posts specified in the rules in question was not restricted only to those persons who possessed a certificate, degree or diploma in printing technology also finds support from a copy of an advertisement notice dated 28th October 1971 for the post of Deputy Superintendent Annexure A to the counter-affidavit dated 28th October 1971 of the respondent No. 2. This advertisement first mentioned the academic qualifications and then the technical qualifications, the latter being described as follows :- "Be a qualified printer with sound practical knowledge and experience in modern methods of printing and graphic artist." The advertisement notice then mentioned the preferential qualifications in the following words :- "Those having training in some recognised technical institute in India or abroad will be preferred." If the expression "qualified printer" were interpreted to mean only such persons who possessed certificate, degree or diploma in printing technology from a recognised institute, there was hardly any occasion for mentioning in the advertisement that those having training in some recognised raining institute in India or abroad will be preferred. The qualifications needed for recruitment to the post of Assistant Superintendent., Government Presses, U. P., which is one of the posts specified in the rules in question, have also been extracted in the "Manual of Information Relating to Employment in Government Service in Uttar Pradesh through Public Service Commission" at page 91. The qualifications needed for recruitment to the post of Assistant Superintendent., Government Presses, U. P., which is one of the posts specified in the rules in question, have also been extracted in the "Manual of Information Relating to Employment in Government Service in Uttar Pradesh through Public Service Commission" at page 91. The requisite technical qualification mentioned therein is :- "Qualified printer with practical experience in printing work... ` Thereafter are mentioned the preferential qualifications which are stated as under :- "Preference will be given to those having training in some recognised technical institutes either in India or abroad." It may be stated at the cost of repetition that if the expression"qualified printer" were interpreted to mean only a person possessing a certificate, degree or diploma in printing technology, there was no occasion for mentioning that preference will be given to those having training in some recognised training institution. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons we have no hesitation in concluding that the expression "qualified printer" occurring in para (a) of clause (ii) of Rule 4 of the rules in question does not only mean a person possessing a certificate, degree or diploma but that it also includes persons who may otherwise be found to be well-versed in the science of printing technology. 11. It cannot be successfully contended and in fact it was not so contended, that the respondent No. 2 was not well-versed in the science of printing technology. The respondent No. 2 was appointed as Assistant Superintendent in 1956 and as Joint Superintendent in 1961. He officiated as Superintendent, Printing & Stationery in the years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 for some time. He was thus working in the posts governed by these rules since the year 1956 and had thereby made himself well acquainted with the science of printing technology. He officiated as Superintendent, Printing & Stationery in the years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 for some time. He was thus working in the posts governed by these rules since the year 1956 and had thereby made himself well acquainted with the science of printing technology. According to the affidavit of Sri Narain Agarwal, Assistant Superintendent of the Industries Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the respondent No. 2 has been an examiner of the Northern India Regional School of Printing Technology for diploma course since 1957; and according to annexure D of the counter-affidavit dated 28th October 1971 sworn by respondent No. 2, he is also a paper setter and examiner for theory in several subjects, and practical examiner for diploma course examination in printing technology of the Board of Technical Education, U. P. Paper-setter and examiner for diploma course in Litho process of the College of Arts & Crafts, Lucknow and Member of the B. H. U. Press Committee. In view of these facts, it cannot be said that he was not a "qualified printer" within the meaning of that expression as interpreted by us. 12. The selection committee, after considering the claims of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 decided in favour of the latter. The State Government accepted that recommendation and appointed him as Superintendent, Printing & Stationery. We agree with the learned Single Judge that no illegality was committed in the making of that appointment. 13. We, therefore, find that this appeal has no force and we accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs-