JUDGMENT S.N. Sahay, J. - These three petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as they raise common questions of law. 2. In writ petition No. 407 of 1984 the facts are that in 1979 a qualifying examination for promotion to the post of Junior Engineers (Mechanical), from amongst the Tubewell Mistris, was held under rule 10 (Kha) of Sichai Vibhag Ki Adhmastha Vidyut Tatha Yantrik Abhinyantran Sewa Niyamawali, 1970. In that examination Gaya Prasad Vishwakarma, opposite party no. 1 who was employed as a Tubewell Mistri, also appeared. He was declared successful on October 16, 1979 but the result was cancelled by an order of the EngineerinChief, Irrigation Department, dated June 28, 1982 on the ground that he was not approved by the Mistri Board. Gaya Prasad then filed a claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal alleging that he was a confirmed Tubewell Mistri and was eligible for appearing in the said examination. The claim petition was contested on the ground that for appearing in the examination it was, inter alia, necessary for a Tubewell Mistri to have been duly approved by the Mistri Selection Board. It was stated that since Gaya Prasad did not possess the said qualification he was not eligible to appear at the examination and the cancellation of his result was valid. 3. The Tribunal held that under Office Memorandum dated October 27, 1971, it was necessary for appearing at the qualifying examination for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer that the condition of approval by the Mistri Board and completion of ten years of continuous service should be fulfilled. However the said Office Memorandum was modified and the conditions were relaxed by order dated February 21, 1979, and the conditions required to be fulfilled by a candidate were that he should possess a recognised wiremen certificate and that he should be confirmed on the post of Tubewell Mistri and if temporary, he should have completed five years of continuous service on January 1, 1979. The Tribunal found that Gaya Prasad admittedly holds a wiremen certificate and he had completed five years' of continuous service on the post of Tubewell Mistri on January 1, 1979. It was accordingly held that Gaya Prasad possessed necessary qualifications an was fully eligible to appear at the qualifying examination. The Tribunal found that Gaya Prasad admittedly holds a wiremen certificate and he had completed five years' of continuous service on the post of Tubewell Mistri on January 1, 1979. It was accordingly held that Gaya Prasad possessed necessary qualifications an was fully eligible to appear at the qualifying examination. The Tribunal took the view that the approval by the Mistri Board was no longer necessary as a condition for eligibility to appear at the examination. The claim petition was accordingly allowed and the order cancelling the result of Gaya Prasad was quashed. The Tribunal directed that on the basis of the result declared on October 16, 1979 Gaya Prasad will be deemed to have passed the qualifying examination for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer. 4. The facts in writ petition Nos. 1795 and 1796 of 1985 are similar. Satya Pal Singh and others, opposite parties no. 1 to 4 in writ petition No. 1795 of 1985 and Hari Dutt Sharma, opposite party no. 1 in Writ Petition, No. 1796 of 1985, appeared in the qualifying examination held in 1980 for promotion to the post of Junior Engineers under Rule 10 (Kha) of the Aforesaid Niyamawali. The opposite parties were at that time employed as Tubewell Mistris on adhoc basis. They were declared successful but their result was frozen by the EngineerinChief, Irrigation Department, by his order dated June 28, 1982 and was lateron cancelled by order dated October 19, 1982 on the ground that they were not approved by the Mistri Selection Board on the date of examination. The opposite parties challenged both the orders before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal by riling claim petitions which were contested on behalf of the State of U.P. and others. The Tribunal found that the services of the opposite parties were adhoc and had not been regularised in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Regularisation of Adhoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules 1979. The opposite parties did not hold the post of Tubewell Mistris in substantive capacity at the time of examination. Since they were not approved by the Mistri Board, there was sufficient justification for Engineerin Chief to freeze their results. The opposite parties did not hold the post of Tubewell Mistris in substantive capacity at the time of examination. Since they were not approved by the Mistri Board, there was sufficient justification for Engineerin Chief to freeze their results. The Tribunal was, however, of the view that the result should not have been cancelled without giving sufficient opportunity to the opposite parties to represent their case The Tribunal accordingly allowed the claim petition and setaside the orders dated October 18, 1982 and June 28, 1982 cancelling the result of the opposite parties. The Tribunal directed that the result of the opposite parties may be kept frozen till they were duly selected by the Mistri Selection Board and the Tribunal further directed that the selection of mistris and the result thereof should be declared within three months otherwise the opposite parties will be deemed to have successfully gone through the selection and the freezing order will expire. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in all the three cases these writ petitions have been filed by the State of U.P. and others. 6. The question which has been raised for determination in these three petitions is whether it was an essential condition for appearing at the qualifying examination that a candidate should have been duly selected by the Mistri Selection Board. Under Article 309 of the Constitution, the U.P. (P.W.D.I.B.) Tubewell Mistris Services Rules, 1951 have been made for regulating recruitment to the post in the Tubewell Mistris Services. The source of recruitment are two fold and recruitment to the service is made either directly or by promotion of confirmed Tubewell Operators. The procedure for direct recruitment is given in Rule 12 and it is provided that the selection from amongst the candidates applying for the post shall be made by a Selection Committee. The procedure for recruitment by promotion is given in rule 13 and it is provided therein also that the selection of candidates shall be made by a Committee. The appointment to the service is thereafter made under Rule 17 from the list prepared by the Selection Committee. 7. Under Sichai Vibhag Ki Adhinastha Vidyut Tatha Yantrik Abhinyantran Sewa Niyamawali, 1970, referred to above, the services of Subordinate Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Services in the Irrigation Department of the Government has been constituted. The appointment to the service is thereafter made under Rule 17 from the list prepared by the Selection Committee. 7. Under Sichai Vibhag Ki Adhinastha Vidyut Tatha Yantrik Abhinyantran Sewa Niyamawali, 1970, referred to above, the services of Subordinate Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Services in the Irrigation Department of the Government has been constituted. The said Niyamawali has been made in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution. The recruitment to the service is made under Rule 5 by direct recruitment through the Public Service Commission in accordance with the procedure prescribed in part V and by promotion from amongst the Tubewell Mistris whose age is below fifty years. Prescribed procedure for making the promotions is contained in Part VI. The provisions relating to the technical and educational qualifications and practical experience are contained in Rule 10. It is provided in SubRule (kha) of Rule 10 that no person shall be promoted unless he has rendered at least ten years of continuous service as Tubewell Mistri and he has passed such qualifying examination as held by the Chief Engineer from time to time. It is in pursuance of this provision that the qualifying examination were held by the Chief Engineer as stated above and the condition was laid down by him that a person who has not been selected by the Mistri Selection Board shall not be eligible for appealing at the qualifying examination. 8. The provisions of Rule 10 Kha (2), empowering the Chief Engineer to hold qualifying examination, is in the nature of an enabling provision. It creates an obligation on the part of the Chief Engineer to hold the qualifying examination from time to time. By necessary implication the Chief Engineer has been given the incidental power to prescribe the conditions relating to the conduct of examination. But the conditions which are prescribed must be reasonable and relevant for testing the ability of a candidate to discharge the duties and functions of Electrical and Mechanical Engineer or Overseers appointed under the Rules. Rule 10 Kha does not confer any power expressly on the Chief Engineer to lay down conditions regarding eligibility for appearing in the qualifying examination or conditions regarding eligibility for appointment to the service. Rule 10 Kha does not confer any power expressly on the Chief Engineer to lay down conditions regarding eligibility for appearing in the qualifying examination or conditions regarding eligibility for appointment to the service. The condition that no person who has not been selected by a Mistri Selection Board shall be qualified to appear in the qualifying examination is outside the scope of the power available to the Chief Engineer under Rule 10 Kha (2). This condition relates to the eligibility for appointment to the service or at any rate a condition relating to the eligibility for appearing at the examination. It has nothing to do with the examination or the ability of a Tubewell Mistri to be able to discharge the duties of an engineer or overseer under the Niyamawali. By means of an executive order issued by the Chief Engineer, provision can be made for matters not specified in the Niyamawali No provision can be made which has the effect of addition to or modification of the Niyamawali. Consequently I am of the opinion that the condition as to approval by the Mistri Selection Board required by the Chief Engineer to be fulfilled by a candidate for appearing at the qualifying examination is illegal and unenforceable. The contention of the petitioners to the contrary cannot be accepted. 9. The result is that there is no force in the writ petitions and they are dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. (Petitions dismissed)