Judgment S.B.Sanyal, J. 1. The petitioners, who are I.Sc., B.A. were candidates for the post of Range Officer of Forest in the year 1982, pursuant to an advertisement dated 10th March, 1982 of the Bihar Public Service Commission (Annexure 1). They appeared at a written test and interview and were finally selected. The said advertisement was for the Sessions 1983-85 and 1983-84. The minimum qualification prescribed for the candidates was Intermediate, but the subjects required to have passed at the Intermediate stage clearly establish, so far as this stage is concerned, Intermediate in Science. The advertisement further required that after the candidates are recommended by the Service Commission, they shall have to undergo a training, and after completion of their training, they will be given regular appointment and will be fitted to different scales, dependent on the result of the training. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that where as those candidates who are B.Sc are required to take one year training, but the petitioners, who are I Sc. B.A. are trying asked to take two years training. This is discriminatory, as the advertisement (Annexure 1) envisages that fitment of the trainees to different scales of pay will be on the basis of the result obtained in training As such, the decision to postpone the appointment of I. Sc. B.A. candidates by one more year makes them junior to I. Sc. B.Sc. candidates. This is not only against the spirit of the advertisement, but is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This is the only point pressed in this writ petition. 3. In Paragraph 5(d) of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the Government of India introduced condensed course of one year for those who are B.Sc candidates, and those who are I. Sc, B.A., B.Com, are required to take training for two years to bring them to equal standard. The Government of India, however, has now decided that the duration of Rangers course should be of two years from the next batch on wards. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in elaboration of his argument, drew our attention to Paragraphs 22 and 23 of the writ petition, which read as hereunder, 22. The Government of India, however, has now decided that the duration of Rangers course should be of two years from the next batch on wards. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in elaboration of his argument, drew our attention to Paragraphs 22 and 23 of the writ petition, which read as hereunder, 22. That the petitioners further state and submit that the action of the respondents in asking the petitioners to go for training for a period of two years where as the other persons who have been appointed and having qualification of graduate in Science has been asked to take up a training course for one year is wholly arbitrary, illegal and without any basis and there is no such condition either in advertisement or in the regulation and as such the action is beyond the powers of respondents. 23. That there is no rules or regulation or criteria fixed either in the notification advertising for appointments to the post of Range Officers of Forest or in any other rules or regulation but the respondents on their own discretion has decided to discriminate between different employees in the same grade which is wholly arbitrary, illegal and is against the various judicial pronouncement. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the respondents produced before us Draft Rules for one year Condensed Rangers Course in Forestry which Rules have been approved by the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation on 22nd September 1981. The letter reads as hereunder. I am directed to refer to your letter No. 2005/81 DFE/5-5-78 dated the 14th September 1981, on the subject mentioned above and to convey the approval of the Government of India to the Draft Rules for the one year Condensed Rangers Course in Forestry received with your endorsement No. 1435/79-DFE/5-5-78 dated the 20th September 1979. The letter reads as hereunder. I am directed to refer to your letter No. 2005/81 DFE/5-5-78 dated the 14th September 1981, on the subject mentioned above and to convey the approval of the Government of India to the Draft Rules for the one year Condensed Rangers Course in Forestry received with your endorsement No. 1435/79-DFE/5-5-78 dated the 20th September 1979. Rule 11 of the said Rules provide for condensed course of one year but the candidates must possess a Bachelors degree in science of any recognised university or equivalent, On 20th of April 1989, the Government of India Ministry of Environment and Forests, Department of Environment, Forests and Wildlife, issued a Circular which reads as follows: ...it has been decided with the approval of the competent authority that the duration of the Rangers Course being conducted in Forest Rangers Colleges in your State should be of two years duration from the next batch onwards.... 5. Relying on these two Circular and rule, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that in the year 1981, there was a condensed Rangers Course of one year meant for B.Sc. candidates only, which has, however, been ordered to be discontinued from 1989, as stated in the counter-affidavit of the respondents, and now onwards there will be two years Rangers training course for all, irrespective of their qualification. 6. Petitioners have filed a supplementary affidavit stating that the Draft Rules, which has been produced before us for one year condensed Rangers Course in Forestry, has no legal force, since, it has not been notified nor it has been published in the official gazette, nor the same has been acted upon, nor it is in terms of the advertisement (Annexure 1). This statement is stated to be true to the information, without disclosing source of the information and/or queries made from whom. In paragraph 23 of the writ petition, the petitioners boldly stated that there are no rules or regulations requiring one year or two years Rangers course, and that statement was based on knowledge. It was not stated that some rules for condensed course do exist, but those rules are invalid and inoperative for some legal lacuna. We are, therefore, not in a position to accept the bold statement made by the petitioners in the supplementary affidavit that the rules were not published as required under law. It was not stated that some rules for condensed course do exist, but those rules are invalid and inoperative for some legal lacuna. We are, therefore, not in a position to accept the bold statement made by the petitioners in the supplementary affidavit that the rules were not published as required under law. Further, the petitioners counsel could not point out the law which requires the courses to be published in the official Gazette. From the advertisement, which is the sheet anchor of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is quite apparent that interview was taken for 1983-85 course and 1983-84 course. The petitioner applied for both the courses, without striking out the words" 1983-85 course". This will mean that they were prepared to undergo either of the two courses which is made available to them. Since the condensed course for one year under the Rules requires the minimum qualification to be B.Sc. we are of the firm opinion that the respondents have not acted arbitrarily and/or have discriminated the petitioners by asking them to obtain two years regular training course, for which they had impliedly applied for. The petitioners having applied for both the course, they are now estopped from asserting that they should be adjusted in one year training course. 7. We do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission.