Honble VERMA, J.–The petitioner is secondary passed and also possessed National Vocational Training Certificate in mechanic (motor mechanic) having been obtained in the year 1988. It is stated by the petitioner that according to the procedure laid down as per Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter called as the Rules) for selection/appointment of Motor Vehicles Sub- Inspectors for direct recruitment, Part-V provides the procedure to be followed in the Schedule appended to the Rules and qualifications and eligibility conditions are mentioned. According to the Rules, 25% posts of the Motor Vehicles Sub-Inspectors are required to be filed up by way of promotion and remaining 75% as direct recruitment. It is stated that only those candidates are eligible for appointment who fulfil the qualifications as provided in the Schedule under column V appended to the Rules of 1963. Rule 9 provides for determination of vacancies, wherein it is provided that competent authority is to determine the vacancies of the earlier years, yearwise which were required to be filled up by promotion, if such vacancies were not determined and filled up earlier in which they are required to be filled in. (2). It is stated that perusal of aforesaid Rule 9 goes to show that rule making authority had intentionally laid down strong emphasis on yearwise determination of vacancies. The age as prescribed under Rule 10 to be 18 as minimum and 35 years as maximum. (3). For direct recruitment, the procedure has been laid down in Chapter IV of the Rules of 1963. It is stated that last selection for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector by way of recruitment was published in the year 1986, when 11 posts were advertised but thereafter no posts had been advertised. it is stated that promotions were being made from the cadre of L.D.Cs. in excess of the quota prescribed from the promotional channel and therefore those persons who are eli- gible to be appointed had missed their chance because of non-determination of the vacancies. (4). The petitioner had earlier filed civil writ petition No. 1238/93 for seeking certain reliefs which was decided by this Court and direction was issued for determining the vacancies and it was held that on account of ban imposed by the State Government, yearwise vacancies had not been determined by the respondent-State and no appointment against direct recruitment quota was made. The petitioner had earlier filed civil writ petition No. 1238/93 for seeking certain reliefs which was decided by this Court and direction was issued for determining the vacancies and it was held that on account of ban imposed by the State Government, yearwise vacancies had not been determined by the respondent-State and no appointment against direct recruitment quota was made. However, it was observed that ban had been now lifted and State was directed to proceed with make the appointments against the direct recruitment quota after determining the year wise vacancies and the only concession, the petitioner was able to get from the court was about the age relaxation. The order was passed by Mr. Justice Arora on 24.1.94. (5). The Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner had issued an advertisement no. 8/95-95 on 31st March, 1995 published in the news paper whereby 89 posts of Sub-Inspectors were to be filled in by way of direct recruitment. The advertisement is annexed as Annex.6. The educational qualification prescribed as per rules in the advertisement is Secondary Education from the recognised Board and a diploma in Automobile Engineering (Three years) or diploma in Mechanical Engineering (Three years Course) obtained from the State Technical Education Board. It is stated that educational qualification now prescribed in the advertisement were be- cause of the amendment introduced by the Governor vide notification dt. 13th April, 1993 (Annex.3). Previously qualification prescribed for recruitment of the post was Metric with I.T.I. Certificate in Automobile Engineering. It is stated that prior to the amendment, the petitioner was duly qualified but now because of the said amendment, the petitioner is now lacking the required qualification. Counsel for the peti- tioner wants to submit that prescribed qualifications must refer to the year to which the vacancies related and therefore, it is stated that he is eligible to appear in the recruitment test for the vacancies of the year 1988-89 to 1992-93 and he cannot be made to suffer because of this reason. It is stated that the petitioner who was eligible before 1992 as direct recruitee would have applied for appointment, if the vacancies would have been advertised year-wise. It is stated that the petitioner who was eligible before 1992 as direct recruitee would have applied for appointment, if the vacancies would have been advertised year-wise. The petitioner relies on Rule 11-B of he Rajasthan State Subordinate Service (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962 wherein it is provided that for a direct recruitment, the candidate is to apply for competitive examination conducted by the Commission and must have attained the age of 21 years and not more than 28 years. The qualification prescribed for the Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspectors as mentioned in the Rules of 1963 are annexed as Annex. 7, which have been narrated above. (6). On the grounds mentioned above, the prayer of the petitioner is that advertisement Annex.6 be quashed and to determine year- wise vacancies of the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector to be filled up by way of direct recruitment and to consider the name of the candidate for recruitment to the said post with respect to the qualifying date of the year to which the vacancy relates and further be declared that qualifications mentioned by the Central Government vide notifications Annex.1 and Annex.2 for the post in question should not operate so far as the recruitment on this post in Rajasthan are concerned, and further qualifications mentioned in Schedule-I for direct recruitment be declared invalid etc. etc. (7). All the respondents have filed written statements. Respondent No.1 & 2 have stated that in the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 the qualifications for the Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspectors as amended from time to time have been incorporated in pursuance of the amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 wherein as per sub-sec. 4 of Section 213 the Central Government had prescribed the qualification for the said post. It is stated that it is not necessary to determine the quota in regard to direct recruitment from year to year. Rule 4 provides to leave vacancies unfilled or hold it in abeyance or abolish any post per- manent or temporary from time to time. It is further submitted that there was a ban on appointment right from the year 1987 to 1990, for the reason that the Central Government had prescribed qualifications under the Motor Vehicles Act for the said post by way of notification. It is further submitted that there was a ban on appointment right from the year 1987 to 1990, for the reason that the Central Government had prescribed qualifications under the Motor Vehicles Act for the said post by way of notification. It had become essential to amend the rules and Schedule by incorporating the qualifications as required under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is stated that the petitioner is likely to be considered only on the qualification prevailing at the time of notification and petitioner has no right to say that qualification are to be considered of the time and of the year when the vacancies should have been determined. (8). It is true that as per Annex.7 qualifications mentiond for the purpose of promotion on the relevant time when Annex.6 was issued, so far as direct recruitment is concerned, are Secondary Examination or diploma in Automobile Engineering (three years) or diploma in Mechanical Engineering (three years) awarded by the State Board. So far as the qualifications for the purpose of promotion are concerned, promotions are to be made from the Lower Division Clerks of the Trans- port Department who possess certificate in automobile engineering, or who have passed a departmental examination in automobile engineering, prescribed by the Transport Department. There is definitely a difference of qualifications prescribed for the direct recruitees and for the candidates to be promoted on promotion. The Direct Recruitees are required to possess qualification of diploma in automobile engineering of three years duration, whereas promotees from the post of L.D.Cs. in the Transport Department are required to possess I.T.I. Certificate of two years duration. The difference of technical qualification so far as the promotees are concerned is not understandable. (9). Section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides appointment of the Motor Vehicle Officer and sub-sec. 4 of Sec. 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that Central Government may, having regard to the objects of the Act, by notification in the Official Gazette, prescribe the minimum qualifications which the said officers or any class thereof shall possess for being appointed as such. Whereas sub-sec.3 of Sec.213 provides that State Government may make rules to regulate the dis-charge by officers of the Motor Vehicles Department of their functions. etc. etc. Under Sec. 213 the Central Government had issued notification no. SO. 443(E) dt. 12th June, 1989 and which is prescribed as under:- 1. Whereas sub-sec.3 of Sec.213 provides that State Government may make rules to regulate the dis-charge by officers of the Motor Vehicles Department of their functions. etc. etc. Under Sec. 213 the Central Government had issued notification no. SO. 443(E) dt. 12th June, 1989 and which is prescribed as under:- 1. Qualification:– (1) Minimum general educational qualification of a pass in X Standard; and (2) a diploma in Automobile Engineer (three years course) or a diploma in Mechanical Engineering awarded by the State Board of Technical Education (3 years course); and (3) working experience of at least one year in a reputed automobile workshop which undertakes repairs of both light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engine; and (4) must hold a driving licence authorising him to give motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles. 2. Nothing contained in the notification shall apply to an officer appointed to such post before the first day of July, 1989 and to an officer appointed to discharge function of a non- technical nature. 3. This notification shall come into force on the first day of July, 1989. (10). From the above notification issued by the Central Government, it is very clear that Central Act requires a diploma in automobile engineers (three years course) alongwith qualification of X Standard passed and further a working experience of at least one year in a reputed automobile workshop which undertakes repairs of both light motor vehicles and heavy goods vehicles etc. etc. Even though, the State Government had earlier prescribed qualification to be I.T.I. Certificate of two years duration for the direct recruitees but after the notification of the Central Govern- ment in the year 1989, the State Government had also amended the rules and has prescribed the educational and technical qualification in consonance with the qualifications prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act by the Central Government. No fault can be found in providing the qualifications as required under law, even otherwise, the qualification can always be changed or modified as per law. The petitioner cannot be said to have been aggrieved because of the amendment of the qualification and no vested right of the petitioner had been violated. No fault can be found in providing the qualifications as required under law, even otherwise, the qualification can always be changed or modified as per law. The petitioner cannot be said to have been aggrieved because of the amendment of the qualification and no vested right of the petitioner had been violated. Only because of the reason that during the past years, the Government had prescribed the different qualifications and since 1992 had amended the qualification for recruitment, it cannot be said that the petitioner can be aggrieved on this count. It is settled law that candidate is to be governed for eligibility to the post at the time when the advertisement is made. The advertisement Annex.6 mentions the same qualifications as have been mentioned in the Rules of 1963. Even though, the petitioner has appeared in the examination, having been so permitted by the court and has been placed on merit-list but the petitioner was allowed to appear because of an interim order and no benefit can be given to the petitioner in this respect if he does not fulfil the qualifications as prescribed. (11). So far as the qualification mentioned for the promotional avenues is concerned, it is not understandable as to why the government had prescribed the lesser technical qualification for the L.D.Cs. It is also not understandable as to why there should be lesser technical qualification in derrogance to the qualifications prescribed under Sec. 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with notification of 1989 issued by the Government of India as prescribed above. It is known fact that Lower Division Clerk in the office only does the clerical work. If a clerk is doing or performing the duties of despatch or receipts, why there should be lesser technical qualification prescribed so far as the clerks in the department are concerned. It is advisable that the Government should amend the Rules of 1963 by providing equal technical qualifications for the promotees for the efficiency of the work to be done by the Sub-inspectors, otherwise, it is bound to violate the principles of equality. There is no averment that L.D.Cs. in the Transport Department are required to do any work on the post of sub-Inspector or the duty attached to the Sub- Inpsector. In such situation, L.D.Cs. There is no averment that L.D.Cs. in the Transport Department are required to do any work on the post of sub-Inspector or the duty attached to the Sub- Inpsector. In such situation, L.D.Cs. having lesser qualification than the prescribed qualification under notification issued under Sec.213 of the Motor Vehicles Act or prescribed for direct recruitees cannot be and should not be allowed to be promoted until and unless they also fullfil the same technical qualifications as prescribed by the Central Act and Central Government under the notification of 1989 as reproduced above. The Government should take up this matter for amending the rules in this regard as to bring equality so far as the technical qualifications are concerned between direct recruitees and L.D.Cs. to be promoted on the technical post. (12). Counsel for the petitioner submits that year-wise vacancies should have been determined for the direct recruitees and relies on 1983 S.C. 852 (1), 1988 S.C. 2068 (2) and 1984 S.C.C. 216 (3) to the effect that any amendment of the rules made effecting the rights of the petitioners and non-determination of the year-wise vacancies are prejudicial to the case of the petitioner and therefore such amend- ment is not applicable to the petitioner. There is no merit in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner, for the reason that no right had been vested in the petitioner. The cases cited by the petitioner relate to the promotional cases whereby the vested rights of the certain promotees had been affected. Counsel for the respondents relies on Union of India & Anr. vs. Yogendra Singh (4) where appli- cations for recruitment were invited, subsequent to such amendment, it was held that a candidate not possessing the currently prescribed qualifications, although possessing the pre- amendment qualifications were not entitled to be appointment even against any unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to the amendment. The Apex Court had observed as under:– ``5. At the time the applications were invited for the posts in question the educational qualifications, already prescribed on 24.5.1990, were B.SC. (Chemistry) plus Diploma in Health Inspector from a recognised institute. The employment notice set out these to be the educational qualifications. The respondent did not possess these educa- tional qualifications. The Apex Court had observed as under:– ``5. At the time the applications were invited for the posts in question the educational qualifications, already prescribed on 24.5.1990, were B.SC. (Chemistry) plus Diploma in Health Inspector from a recognised institute. The employment notice set out these to be the educational qualifications. The respondent did not possess these educa- tional qualifications. No candidate who does not possess the currently prescribed qualifications, but who may possess the educational qualifications prescribed earlier, can be said to qualify or have any vested right to appointment even against some earlier unfilledvacancy. Every candidate who aspires to fill any vacancy must possess the educational qualifications that are then prescribed. (13). In S. Satyapal Reddy and others vs. Govt. of A.P. (5) while noticing Sec. 213(1) and (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Central Governments power to issue notification, it was held that where statute empowering State Government and Central Government to make appointments and to prescribe minimum qualifica- tions respectively and in case, State Rules prescribes higher qualification, it cannot be held that it was a repugnant to Central Rules prescribing minimum qualifications. In the present case, the State Government was competent to prescribe higher qualification than the qualifications prescribed by the Central Government but in no case, the State Government could have prescribed lower qualification. The case of Manoj Krishna Nayak vs. State of Orissa (6) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein it was held that non-prescription of experience for the direct recruits cannot be said to be a ground which would vitiate the rules vis-a-vis promotees. (14). In view of the above said discussion and reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.