JUDGMENT 1. Before I proceed to write down a detailed order in this revision petition, I would like to mention that neither I was inclined to go into the details in this case nor discuss the Rules as I was conscience of the parameters within which this court has to function under its revisional jurisdiction. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Aronotics v. Ajit Prasad, AIR 1973 S.C. 76 , have held "the order of the first appellate court may be right or wrong may not be in accordance with law but one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It is not the case that the first appellate court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or without material irregularity. That being so the High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under S. 115 CPC". In this view of the matter there was no necessity to go into the legal aspect as it would have prejudiced the case of either party in the main suit but Shri Samdariya, appearing for the petitioner as well as Shri M.I. Khan, Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"), submitted that they have no dispute on the facts involved in the case and it is only interpretation of Rules which call for a decision in the case and if that is done in this revision petition even at this stage this will bring an end to the entire controversy in the suit and not only the valuable time of the concerned court would be saved, the parties would also be saved of time, money and energy. Besides this, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that his client would be knowing as to how it may act upon the rules in future for recruitment to the post of Senior Stenographers and for all these reasons I am proceeding to decide this case by this detailed reasoned order. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order of Addl. District Judge No. 2, Ajmer dated December 9, 1983, reversing the order passed by Munsiff, Ajmer (East), dated September 14, 1982, in an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction in mandatory form directing the Commission to promote the plaintiff appellant as Senior Stenographer in a suit for permanent injunction. 3. District Judge No. 2, Ajmer dated December 9, 1983, reversing the order passed by Munsiff, Ajmer (East), dated September 14, 1982, in an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction in mandatory form directing the Commission to promote the plaintiff appellant as Senior Stenographer in a suit for permanent injunction. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Ladulal Jain joined the service in the Commission as a Lower Division Clerk on 3.10.1972 and was confirmed in that post on 21.1.1977. He was appointed as Stenographer on 29.3.1978 and was confirmed in that post w.e.f. 23.7.1981 and he is working on this post till date. His services are governed by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Ministerial and Subordinate Service Staff) Rules and Regulations. 1979 (herein- after referred to as "the Rules"). In these Rules next promotion of the Stenographer is on the post of Senior Stenographer. The recruitment to the post of Senior Stenographer is by two methods, one is direct recruitment and another by promotion and by each of the methods 50% posts are to be filled in. The source and method of the recruitment is mentioned in the Schedule appended with the Rules which provided as under:- S.No. Name of posts Sources of recruitment with percentage Minimum qualification for direct recruitment. Post from which promotion is to be made Minimum qualification and experience for promotion 1 2 3 4 5 6 Group B 1 Senior Stenographer 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment amongst the Stenographers of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (1) As specified in sub-rule (2) of rule 20 (2) Must have worked as Stenographer in the Commission's office atleast for a period of four years. Stenographer (1) Must have passed the qualifying examination for Stenographer as specified in Part-II of Schedule-III appended to these rules. (2) Must have worked as Stenographer in the Commission's office atleast for a period of seven years. According to the aforesaid Schedule 50% posts were to be filled in by promotion and the Stenographer must have passed qualifying examination for Stenographer as specified in Part-II of Schedule-III and must have also worked as Stenographer in the Commission's office at least for a period of seven years, while 50% posts were to be filled in by direct recruitment also. The recruitment has to be done from amongst the Stenographers working in the Commission and they must be eligible for appointment to the post of Senior Stenographer if they pass the qualifying examination as specified in sub-rule (ii) of Rule 20(2) of the Rules, i e.. (i) the candidate must he substantive in the cadre of Stenographer, (ii) he must be eligible for substantive appointment under proviso (v) and (vii) to Rule 6 of the Rules or (iii) must have passed Stenographer's qualifying examination held by the Commission and worked as Stenographer for a period of two years and must have worked as Stenographer in Commission's office for a minimum period of four years. It is then pleaded that the Commission invited applications by issuing an Advertisement on October 3, 1981 for filling one post of Senior Stenographer by direct recruitment. Since the plaintiff was eligible he along with defendant No. 2 Michel John and defendant No. 3 Hanuman Singh Bhati applied for the said post. When the result of the aforesaid examination was declared plaintiff secured first position as he got 69 marks out of 100 marks, while Michel John was second with 57% marks and Shri Bhati at No. 3 with 43% marks. The plaintiff's case is that as per Rule 23 list has to be prepared in order of merit and the Commission is obliged to appoint candidate who stands highest in order of merit in the list prepared under Rule 23 of the Rules. As per Rule 25 of the Rules the only rider is that the candidate to be appointed should be suitable in all other respects for appointment to the post concerned. Plaintiff's grievance is though he was fully eligible and satisfying the conditions as laid down in Rule 20(2) of the Rules and the Schedule vet defendant No. 2 Michel John is being considered for appointment to the post and this appointment would be in clear contravention of not only the Rules but also Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India hence he filed a suit praying for an injunction to restrain the Commission from appointing Michel John on the post of Senior Stenographer with a direction that Commission should be directed to appoint the plaintiff petitioner on the post of Senior Stenographer. This suit was accompanied with an application for temporary injunction under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC as mentioned above. 4. Replying to the application the Commission submitted that the petitioner did not fulfil the requirements for appointment to the post of Senior Stenographer. A candidate should have worked for a period of four years in Commission's office as Stenographer and must have passed the qualifying examination. It is submitted that he has not correctly read the rules and though he has passed the qualifying examination, yet he has not fulfilled the experience. It was stated that the vacancy of Senior Stenographer was to be filled in from promotion quota but as none was fulfilling the conditions for promotion under the Rules the post was advertised as if it was direct recruitment on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It was submitted that all the three candidates were eligible according to Rule 20(2) of the Rules who were allowed to take up the examination conducted on February 21, 1982 and all of them were found qualified in these examinations. 5. The Commission's case was that it did not conduct a competitive examination but what was conducted was only a qualifying examination and therefore, merit was irrelevant. The Commission's case further is that the plaintiff cannot claim seniority over two other defendants on the basis of better marks secured by him in the examination. It was replied that the plaintiff was appointed as Stenographer on temporary basis on March 29, 1978 and his services were regularised under Rule 6(iv) read with Rule 20(6) of the Rules on August 8, 1980 and it was thereafter that he was confirmed with effect from July 23, 1978. Mr. Michel John and Mr. Hanuman Singh Bhati were appointed on February 10, 1978 on regular basis after they had passed competitive examinations conducted by the Commission for the post of Stenographer. Michel John joined on June 2, 1978, while Hanuman Singh Bhati on April 28, 1978 and it was, therefore, submitted that it was both of them only who fulfilled second requirement laid down under the Rules. It was further submitted that in fact Ladulal failed in the qualifying examinations in English Shorthand when he appeared with Michel John and Hanuman Singh Bhati for appointment to the post of Stenographer and for this reason lie could not be appointed along with them. It was further submitted that in fact Ladulal failed in the qualifying examinations in English Shorthand when he appeared with Michel John and Hanuman Singh Bhati for appointment to the post of Stenographer and for this reason lie could not be appointed along with them. The Commission's case is that since there was paucity of Stenographers and the plaintiff had passed in Hindi shorthand and typing despite the fact that he could not compete with the other two, he was given temporary appointment which could not confer any right on him to claim any seniority over the other two and get preference over them by securing more marks in qualifying examinations, particularly when it was after a couple of years of their appointment that his services were regularised as Stenographer after screening. Thus it is submitted that he being absolutely on temporary basis and not being appointed on regular basis in 1978, he could not be in regular line of promotion and his services can only be counted w.e.f. August 8, 1980 and in that eventuality he has not worked for four years and does not fulfil the requisite experience as laid down in Schedule I of the Rules. 6. Michel John and Hanuman Singh Bhati also filed the similar replies. The learned Munsiff after hearing both the parties directed that the plaintiff should be appointed within 7 days from the date of the order on the post of Senior Stenographer in pursuance of the Advertisement, dated October 3, 1981 in place of defendant No. 2 Shri Michel John. Aggrieved by this order two appeals were preferred before the District Judge. Ajmer, one by the Commission and other by Michel John and Hanuman Singh which were transferred to the court of Addl. District Judge No. 2, Ajmer who disposed of both the appeals by a common order dated December 9, 1983, i. e., the impugned order and thereby reversed the order passed by learned Munsiff and then dismissed the application of the plaintiff under O. 39 R. I & 2 CPC. It is against that order that this revision petition has been filed. 7. Shri Samdariya, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the appellate court was in error in reversing the judgment of the learned Munsiff when the same was not warranted. It is against that order that this revision petition has been filed. 7. Shri Samdariya, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the appellate court was in error in reversing the judgment of the learned Munsiff when the same was not warranted. His submission is that the appellate court should be slow in interfering in the orders of the trial court as the scope of hearing miscellaneous appeals arising out of an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is different than the one which is a regular appeal. It is then submitted that the appellate court gave erroneous interpretation to the provisions of the rule 20 (2) of the Rules. It is submitted that the plaintiff-petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Senior Stenographer in preference to Mr. Michel John, since he stood first in the order of merit in the examination conducted by the Commission for the purpose of filling one post of Senior Stenographer. His submission is that the petitioner had applied in response to the Advertisement and the examinations were also conducted as per earlier Schedule. Besides that the qualifications required to be fulfilled by the Advertisement were in accordance with the rules meant for direct recruitment. Thus for all purposes the post was to be filled in in accordance with Chapter IV where the procedure is prescribed for selection by promotion to be filled in from direct recruitment. It is submitted that a combined reading of Rules 2 (n), 6 (a) & (b) 17, 20(2), 23 and 25 of the Rules would show that none else other than the petitioner could be appointed to the post of Senior Stenographer in pursuance of the Advertisement. It was thus submitted that a wrong interpretation is sought to be given both by Commission and the appellate court to the phrase he must have worked. 'These words are being read as if they mean that he must have worked in substantive capacity or that the word ,worked' is equivalent to word 'experience' or `service' as mentioned in Rule 2(n) of the Rules. It is submitted that, in fact it was a competitive examination wherein the petitioner stood highest in merit and in order to give preference to another, rules could not be circumvented. It is submitted that, in fact it was a competitive examination wherein the petitioner stood highest in merit and in order to give preference to another, rules could not be circumvented. Commenting upon the scheme of the Rules learned counsel submits that when the appointment to the post of Senior Stenographer has to be made from two sources. i.e. one by direct recruitment and another by promotion and in both the only persons eligible to be appointed are the Stenographers already working in the Commission. Thus no other interpretation can be given except that direct recruitment has been kept in older to give preference to better talented persons as the Commission has a special status. In this respect learned counsel relied on Umapati Choudhary & ors. v. Subodh Choudhary & ors. AIR 1953 Cal 377 , and Francis Coralie v. The Administrator AIR 1981 SC 746 . 8. Lastly submitted that once an Advertisement is issued and no reservation is kept it is not open to take any other recourse and fall back to some other rules. Reference was made to Maharashtra State Electricity Board Engineers Association v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Anr. AIR 1968 Bombay 65 & Dr. Srikant Rao v. State of Rajasthan & others, 1975(2) SLR 94. 9. Mr. M.I. Khan, Addl. Advocate General, appearing for non-petitioner submitted that according to the Schedule appended to the Rules Senior Stenographers were to be appointed and posted by direct recruitment from amongst the Stenographers of the Commissioner and one of the essential conditions of the Schedule was that the person to be appointed as Senior Stenographer must possess the minimum qualification prescribed under sub-rule(2) of Rule 20 of the Rules and second is that he must have worked as Stenographer in Commission's office at least for a period of four years. The Commission has interpreted the Schedule that the Stenographers working in the Commission must have worked in substantive capacity for a period of four years. It is submitted that Michel John was appointed as Stenographer on January 1, 1975 and Hanuman Singh Bhati on January 12, 1974 but they were regularly appointed in that post after being declared successful in the competitive examinations held by the Commission in the year 1978 wherein Ladulal Jain had also appeared and failed. It is submitted that Michel John was appointed as Stenographer on January 1, 1975 and Hanuman Singh Bhati on January 12, 1974 but they were regularly appointed in that post after being declared successful in the competitive examinations held by the Commission in the year 1978 wherein Ladulal Jain had also appeared and failed. Thus Michel John and Hangman Singh Bhati shall be deemed to have been working as Stenographers earlier than Shri Ladulal Jain who was appointed on March 29, 1978 but was confirmed subsequently on July 23, 1981 when new rules came into force and he was screened. It was submitted that according to the dates of confirmations on the post of Stenographer Michel John and Hanuman Singh Bhati were confirmed w.e.f.April 8, 1981 while Ladulal Jain w.e.f.July 23, 1981 and thus on the date of qualifying examination, conducted for the post of Stenographer all the three were confirmed. Under Rule 20(2) of the Rules they were allowed to appear in the examination but none of them completed four years on the post of Stenographer on the substantive basis and as such when Michel John completed four years on June 3, 1982 he was posted as Senior Stenographer w.e.f. 15.6.82 as he was one of the successful candidates. It was submitted that Rule 23 of the Rules is a general Rule for recommendation by the Commission and does not differ for the recommendation for qualifying examination. It is submitted that there is distinction between qualifying examination and competitive examination and in this qualifying examination which was conducted the merit was not to be taken into consideration. It is lastly submitted that giving harmonious construction to all the Rules, the purposeful interpretation to proviso appended to Rule 23(2) of the Rules, would make it clear that for qualifying examination there was no need to recommend the name of the candidate in order of merit and the proviso which reads as under- "Provided further that the Commission shall not recommend any candidate for the post of Stenographer who has failed to obtain a minimum of 35% marks in each of the Shorthand paper and Type-writing paper and a minimum of 40% in the aggregate and in qualifying examinations for Senior Stenographers. The Commission shall not recommend any candidate who has failed to obtain minimum of 40% marks". The Commission shall not recommend any candidate who has failed to obtain minimum of 40% marks". This clearly goes to show that there is no bar of any sort for the person to be recruited for the post of Stenographer and the Commission shall prepare a list of successful candidates on the criteria laid down under the Rules regarding speed and efficiency of the candidate, but in case of Senior Stenographers it must be fully satisfied. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have perused the entire rules and the record placed before me carefully. 11. For interpreting the rules it would be relevant to first understand the scheme of the Rules, applicable for appointment to the post of Senior Stenographer. Rule 4 of the Rules is about composition and the strength of the service and according to Rule 4(i) of the Rules the nature of post included in the Schedule shall be as specified in column 2 of Schedule I and each group in Schedule I shall constitute a separate service. Senior Stenographer is a post shown in Col. 2 of Schedule I and thus it is reasonable to conclude that Senior Stenographer is a separate cadre of post in the Rules. Rule 6 of the Rules is about method of recruitment and the relevant is Rule 6(1) (a) which reads as tinder : "6. Methods of recruitment-Recruitment to the posts in the Service after the commencement of these rules and regulations shall be made by the following methods:- (a) direct recruitment in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Part-IV of these rules and regulations. (b)------" Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules is about determination of vacancies. Thereafter in Chapter IV the procedure is laid down which is to be followed for direct recruitment and a self-contained procedure is prescribed in Chapter IV from Rule 17 upto Rule 25 of the Rules for direct recruitment and for selection by promotion it is in Rule 26. (b)------" Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules is about determination of vacancies. Thereafter in Chapter IV the procedure is laid down which is to be followed for direct recruitment and a self-contained procedure is prescribed in Chapter IV from Rule 17 upto Rule 25 of the Rules for direct recruitment and for selection by promotion it is in Rule 26. Eligibility for the persons who intend to apply for direct recruitment is prescribed in Rule 20 (2) of the Rules which reads as under:- "R. 20 (2)-Eligibility for admission to the Senior Stenographers' qualifying examination -Against 50% of the posts of Senior Stenographers, persons who fulfil the following conditions shall be eligible to appear in the Senior Stenographers examination to be conducted by the Commission- (i) must be substantive in the cadre of Stenographers; OR (ii) must be eligible for substantive appointment under proviso (vi) and (vii) to Rule 6 of these rules and regulations; OR (iii) must have passed Stenographer's qualifying examination held by the Commission and worked as Stenographer at least for a period of 2 years". After the eligible candidate takes up the examination conducted by the Commission the Commission is obliged to prepare the list of successful candidates suitable for appointment to the post concerned and arrange the names in order of merit. Rule 23 (1) of the Rules reads as under:- "R. 23 (1)-Recommendations of the Commission-The Commission shall prepare a list of the candidates whom they consider suitable for appointment to the posts concerned, arranged in the order of merit. (2) - - - " 12. It is thereafter that under Rule 25 of the Rules, the appointment has to be given to the person so selected provided he is otherwise suitable. Then there is a Schedule appended to the Rules which has already been quoted above. Rule 26 of the Rules is about the persons to be appointed as Senior Stenographer by selection for promotion. I need not go into details of the rule applicable for this selection by promotion because it is an admitted case of the parties that none of the three was qualified to be appointed by promotion as they had not worked as Stenographers in the Commission's office for a minimum period of 7 years required by rules and therefore controversy in the entire case is narrowed down. The main question to be decided in the case is as to whether the appointment should have been done of a candidate who stood highest in order of merit or that merit has no consideration as it was only a qualifying examination and further that whether 'worked as Stenographer for four years' means -having worked for four years in substantive capacity.' 13. A perusal of entire Rules and the Schedule makes it clear that Schedule specifies the minimum qualification required for appointment to the post of Senior Stenographer, and requirement for the purpose is 'as specified in sub-rule (2) of Rule 20 of the Rules' and 'must have worked as Stenographer in the Office of Commission at least for a period of four years'. Thus, these are the only two conditions which are required to be fulfilled by Stenographers considered for appointment as Senior Stenographers by direct recruitment against 50% quota. To be more precise the only thing required to be interpreted is as to what is specified in sub-rule (2) of Rule 20 of the Rules' and what is meant by 'must have worked as Stenographer in Commission's office at least for a period of four years'. Regarding the first part, I have already quoted Rule 20(2) of the Rules above. On a careful reading and then paraphrasing the Rule would be read as under:- (a) the examination shall be conducted for appointment to the post of Senior Stenographers, (b) such examination shall be for 50% of the posts of Senior Stenographers, (c) person eligible for taking up the examination (i) should be substantive Stenographer OR (ii) must be eligible for substantive appointment under proviso (vi) and (vii) to Rule 6 of these rules and regulations, OR (iii) must have passed Stenographer' qualifying examination and then worked as Stenographer for two years. The Commission wants this Rule 20(2) to be read differently but I am afraid it cannot be because there is no ambiguity and legislature has used plain words which hardly can be otherwise interpreted and plain meaning has to be seen. It was not at all essential that all the three alternative eligibilities mentioned in this sub-rule should have been fulfilled by any or all of the candidates. It was not at all essential that all the three alternative eligibilities mentioned in this sub-rule should have been fulfilled by any or all of the candidates. It is also not the requirement that person eligible for appearing at the examination should have worked for four years because the legislature itself by enacting the rules made different eligibilities for taking up the examination and different for the purpose of actual appointment. May be, because a man on the date of examination might not be qualified for appointment on that day but he can thereafter be appointed as soon as he fulfils the conditions laid down in the Schedule. Ones he takes up the examination the only rider is that he should have worked as Stenographer in Commission's office for at least four years, whether this four years' period has to be in substantive capacity or not is again to be seen. I have already mentioned above that appointment to the post of Senior Stenographer is to be made only from amongst the Stenographers working in Commission's office, may be by direct recruitment or by selection for promotion. Thus, where the two sources are available from the same cadre obviously one is kept for those who are outstanding and meritorious and for judging the merit the examinations have been provided and only those have been made eligible to appear who fulfil either of these thing mentioned in Rule 20(2) of the Rules. Therefore, it is not essential that two or more than two persons entering as Stenographers into department on the same day, should be promoted, in preference to one, who has joined as Stenographer from a latter date even if he is outstanding. Examinations are being held for two purposes under the Scheme of the Rules. One for considering the merits and other for qualifying for promotion. For one, merit is essential, for the another, no, because for former according to Rule 23 of the Rules,the names of the persons suitable for appointment have to be arranged in order of merit. The proviso to Rule 23 of the Rules to which the learned counsel for the Commission has referred to has a different meaning.That proviso only puts a rider as to who would not be considered to have qualified at the examination. The proviso to Rule 23 of the Rules to which the learned counsel for the Commission has referred to has a different meaning.That proviso only puts a rider as to who would not be considered to have qualified at the examination. i.e., who has not secured it minimum of 400 marks in the aggregate and in qualifying examination of Senior Stenographer shall not be recommended. That would not mean that the merit would not be considered, otherwise the very purpose of the Rules, in my opinion, is frustrated. A person who has entered the service of Commission and has become substantive or otherwise eligible under Rule 20(2) of the Rules, if makes efforts and does regular practice to compete with his seniors the law permits that he may even surpass by direct recruitment in the vacancy to be filled in as such, else there was no purpose in framing Rules 17 to 25 of the Rules. 14. In the instant case there is no dispute as mentioned above, that all the three were eligible for taking up the examination and they took up the examination. It is not denied that the petitioner secured the highest marks in the examinations conducted and, therefore he stood first in order of merit. Therefore, if merit was a consideration under Rule 23 of the Rules and appointment was to be made under Rule 25 of the Rules, then there was no escape from appointing him on the said post because he had been working as Stenographer with effect from March 29, 1978, i.e.. more than four years from the date on which the appointment was made. "Worked as Stenographer for four years" or "has worked as Stenographer for four years in substantive capacity" have different meaning. Had the legislature intended to read it as such then there was no difficulty in using the same phraseology as has been used in first alternative to Rule 20(2) of the Rules. Again if we look at Rule 20(2) of the Rules, then different words have been used in different alternative. In the very first the word 'substantive' has been used but in the third alternative even a person who has passed examination held by the Commission and worked for two years is found to be eligible. Therefore, it cannot be said that the legislature was short of words or vocabulary when the Rules were framed. In the very first the word 'substantive' has been used but in the third alternative even a person who has passed examination held by the Commission and worked for two years is found to be eligible. Therefore, it cannot be said that the legislature was short of words or vocabulary when the Rules were framed. They never wanted to distinguish a person working in substantive capacity or in any other capacity subject to the eligibility as provided in first part of column IV, therefore, both have to be read independently and given the meaning so as to give effect to the intention of the legislature that Senior Stenographers should also be promoted out of turn showing it to be a source of direct recruitment but from within the cadre of Stenographers. In the instant case the Commission had issued an Advertisement dated October 3, 1982 (sic) where there is no ambiguity. It was issued for filling up one vacancy of Senior Stenographer through direct recruitment from amongst the eligible candidates. In this Advertisement if the Commission wanted to give benefit to one who would not fall within the merit, then they could very well mention the same, but this Advertisement did not contain any clause that Senior-most Stenographer shall be appointed as Senior Stenographer or that after passing the qualifying examination candidate standing in merit may not be appointed in preference to the availability of a Senior incumbent ranking II or III in the merit or that Rules 23 and 25 of the Rules shall not be followed. Absolutely no reservation was kept for the purpose of making any departure from the Advertisement and that not having been done it was not open to the Commission to take it different view of the matter. It is settled proposition of law that once the Advertisement is issued unless or otherwise, cancelled no relaxation or departure can be made and the persons appearing in consequence of the Advertisement can also not be taken by surprise. It is not open to the authority even to relax the terms of the Advertisement, subsequently. This court in Dr. Shrikant Rao v. State of Rajasthan and others (supra) has categorically held that equality of opportunity will be determined for the purpose of Article 16 of the Constitution of India by the terms of the Advertisement culling for the application for filling up the posts. This court in Dr. Shrikant Rao v. State of Rajasthan and others (supra) has categorically held that equality of opportunity will be determined for the purpose of Article 16 of the Constitution of India by the terms of the Advertisement culling for the application for filling up the posts. Where in the Advertisement it is not suggested that the qualifications prescribed were relaxable or that the applications could be entertained even thereafter it will not be open to competent authority to relax the terms of the Advertisement. This court relied on Division Bench case of Bombay High Court reported in Maharashtra State Electricity Board Engineers Association v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board (supra) wherein also it was held that 'we fail to see how a direct candidate having less than minimum experience as advertised could at all be considered for the post for which minimum qualification, were advertised. Regulation 23 itself postulates that when posts are advertised prescribing minimum qualifications, departmental candidate cannot apply if they do not passing the prescribed qualifications and experience.But Advertisement does not say that the qualification and experience as advertised are not rigid and are liable to relaxation and condonation, or that ordinarily the prescribed qualifications and experience were expected but not insisted. Such an advertisement effectively prevents departmental candidate from making even an application at all. It is in this sense that equality of opportunity has been denied to the departmental candidate, in this case in competing for the post to be filled by direct recruitment. If the Advertisement were to show that there is no rigidity regarding minimum qualifications and experience, and that in suitable cases they are liable to be relaxed or condoned, the petitioner would have no legitimate grievance. That not having been done it must be held that the petitioners have been denied fair opportunity of competing for the post to be filled by direct recruitment by Advertisement". That not having been done it must be held that the petitioners have been denied fair opportunity of competing for the post to be filled by direct recruitment by Advertisement". Thus, a perusal of the aforesaid cases makes it absolutely clear that no express or implied powers vested in the Commission to depart from the procedure laid down in Rules for making appointments by direct recruitment method and had they been followed, then there was no escape except appointing the petitioner, Ladulal Jain, as Senior Stenographer, in preference to Michel John because the petitioner was eligible under Rule 20(2) of the Rules and had also worked as Stenographer in the Commission for four years. 15. For the aforesaid reasons the revision petition is allowed. The order of the first appellate court dated December 9, 1983 is set aside and that of the trial court dated September 14, 1982 is restored. Respondent No. 1, the Commission, is directed to appoint the Petitioner, Ladulal Jain forthwith as Senior Stenographer. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the cost of this revision- petition.Revision Petition allowed with costs. *******