Judgment :- Abdul Gafoor, J. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P7 and seeking a declaration that "insistence of qualification to drive heavy goods vehicles, heavy passenger vehicles as on the last date of application to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector for appointment as per Ext. P1 notification is illegal and also that the rejection of Ext. P6 work experience as paid trainee for appointment to the above post is illegal". By Ext. P7, his application to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector was rejected on the ground that he did not possess driving licence to drive heavy vehicles and that he did not have work experience as required in Ext. P2 notification. 2. Ext. P1 is the notification issued by the Public Service Commission inviting applications to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, a category in Kerala Transport Subordinate Service governed by the Special Rules for the said service. R.4(b) of the Special Rules provides for the minimum qualification for direct recruitment to the post as follows: (i) Minimum general educational qualification of the S.S.L.C. Standard. (ii) Diploma in Automobile Engineering issued after a course, the duration of which is not less than three years by recognised Universities or by Government. (iii) Motor Driving Licence with endorsement for driving Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicles and Heavy Goods Vehicles. Note: In the absence of candidates possessing Motor Driving Licence with endorsement of eligibility for driving Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicles and Heavy Goods Vehicles those without such an endorsement in their licence will also be considered for appointment to the post. Such candidates, if selected, shall however obtain the Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicles and Heavy Goods Vehicles endorsement, within the period of probation. This rule insists that the incumbent should possess licence to drive heavy goods and heavy passenger vehicles. But, it does not insist for licence to drive motor cycles. Admittedly by the petitioner, he did not possess driving licence to drive heavy vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles as on the last date fixed in Ext. P1 to submit the application. It is also mentioned in the Note in Ext. P1 notification that the application shall indicate their qualifications in the application and shall produce self attested certificates along with the application. P1 to submit the application. It is also mentioned in the Note in Ext. P1 notification that the application shall indicate their qualifications in the application and shall produce self attested certificates along with the application. This makes it clear that one should possess the necessary qualification for the post insisted in the notification at the time of submitting application. When the petitioner did not possess the necessary minimum obligatory qualification as contained in the Special Rules or in Ext. P1 notification as on the last date to submit the application, necessarily he is not entitled to be considered. Art.16 of the Constitution of India ensures equality of opportunity to all in the matter of public employment, to such circumstances, in order to have definiteness, there shall be cut off date. It cannot be taken that any person can apply at any time as and when he gets qualified for appointment to any post. When a last date is fixed in a notification, it shall be taken that all those who are qualified as on that date alone are entitled to apply. That will be the sense accepted by all. If one applies even without that qualification and acquire the qualification later, and insists that he shall be considered; there will be several other persons like him, who did not apply, only because of the stipulation of last date in the notification. Therefore, in order to have definiteness in the matter of selection for public employment, the applicant should possess the necessary minimum qualifications as on the last date fixed to submit the application. Therefore, as the petitioner did not possess the driving licence to drive goods vehicle and heavy passenger vehicle as on the last date fixed to submit the application, he was not entitled to apply for the post pursuant to Ext. P1. Thus, his application was rightly rejected. 3. The petitioner submits that based on the Note in the Special Rules as extracted above, one need not possess the motor driving licence to drive heavy vehicles at the time of application or even at the time of selection and that he need acquire that licence only during the period of probation. But, the petitioner omits that the Note is applicable only "in the absence of candidates possessing Motor Driving Licence with endorsement of eligibility for driving Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicles and Heavy Goods Vehicles". But, the petitioner omits that the Note is applicable only "in the absence of candidates possessing Motor Driving Licence with endorsement of eligibility for driving Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicles and Heavy Goods Vehicles". The petitioner has no case that there is absence of candidates possessing licence to drive heavy vehicles. In the absence of that, the petitioner cannot seek shelter under the" Note'. When the Public Service Commission has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that he did not possess driving licence to drive Heavy Vehicles, it shall be taken that there are sufficient qualified hands in terms of the Rule, possessing such licence. So, the petitioner's application was rightly rejected. 4. To challenge Ext. P7, the petitioner relies on the recent Division Bench decision of this Court in" Varghese Mathew v. State of Kerala (1997 (1) KLT 350). In that case, as noted by the Division Bench, "application was rejected on the following reasons: (i) Experience Certificate without salary is not acceptable. (ii) Licence regarding motor cycle is not produced". Thus, the applicants in that case did, at the material time, possess driving licence to drive Heavy passenger Motor Vehicles and Heavy Goods Vehicles. The Division Bench has noted that, "As a matter of fact, the licence will show that the petitioner had obtained Licence for driving heavy motor vehicle from 1912.1988 and heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger vehicle from 21.7.1990". Thus, it is evident that the application was 'rejected for non-production of the experience certificate and motor cycle licence'. The applicant in that case had got the endorsement with regard to motor cycle only on 13.5.1996 ie. after the last date fixed to receive applications. It was contended by the Public Service Commission in that "Central Government has issued a notification under S.213(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, by which holding a licence for motor cycle is also an essential qualification. In the Special Rules, for recruitment with regard to Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspectors framed by the Government of Kerala, possessing of licence like motor cycle is not included. But, since the Central Government has held that qualification is necessary, the PSC after ascertaining from the Central Government, including possessing of licence for driving motor cycle as an essential qualification. It was by a mistake that originally, the petitioner's applications were entertained. But, since the Central Government has held that qualification is necessary, the PSC after ascertaining from the Central Government, including possessing of licence for driving motor cycle as an essential qualification. It was by a mistake that originally, the petitioner's applications were entertained. Later, it was found that the petioner did not possess the qualification on the last date of receipt of the application. Those applications were rejected. Learned counsel submitted that it is clear from the decisions of the Supreme Court that the candidates should possess the qualification on the date when they apply or at least on the last date of receipt of the applications. Both the petitioners did not have driving licence for driving motor cycle on the last date of receipt of the applications and hence rejection of the applications is correct and the judgment of the learned single judge is correct." Thus, the Division Bench was considering the requirement of the licence for driving motor cycle which is not included as an obligatory qualification in the Special Rules framed under the Public Service Act, by required in terms of the notification issued under S.213 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Examining these aspects, the Division Bench found as follows: "The Kerala Transport Subordinate Service Rules were framed in exercise of the power given to the Government under S.2 of the Kerala Public Services Act. In this case, we find that both the petitioners were holding licence for driving heavy motor vehicles and heavy goods vehicles and they wanted only an endorsement with regard to driving motor cycle. They have obtained the same before the date of interview. Hence, according to us, in the light of R.4(b) of the Kerala Transport Subordinate Service Rules, the rejection of the petitioners' applications on the ground that they did not possess the licence for driving motor cycle on the last date of the submission of the application is correct". (emphasis supplied) Thus, the Division Bench set aside only rejection of the application for want of licence to drive motor cycle; not for want of the licence to drive heavy vehicles which is mandatory necessary in terms of the Special Rules. The Division Bench granted the benefit of the Note taking note of the fact that driving licence to drive motor cycle was not provided in the Special Rules. Therefore, that could have been obtained during probation. The Division Bench granted the benefit of the Note taking note of the fact that driving licence to drive motor cycle was not provided in the Special Rules. Therefore, that could have been obtained during probation. That decision therefore, will not attract a case where the application was rejected, as in the case of the petitioner, for want of possession of the necessary motor driving licence to drive heavy passenger and heavy goods vehicles in terms of R.4(b) of the Special Rules. Thus, the Division Bench decision covered only the rejection of the application for want of driving licence to drive motor vehicle and did not cover cases like that of the petitioner where incumbent did not possess driving licence to drive heavy passenger and heavy goods vehicles. Such qualification should have been possessed even before submission of the application or at the latest by the last date of submission of the application namely 30.8.95. 5. The petitioner contends that the Note under R.4(b) did not differentiate between the licence to drive motor vehicles and the license to drive heavy vehicles. But, the reading of the entire judgment will make it clear that the Division Bench did really apply the Note only with regard to possession of driving licence to drive motor vehicles which was not prescribed by the Special Rules. That is why the Division Bench did not attribute importance to the opening words of the Note, namely "in the absence of the candidates possessing ". Those words have to be given importance. The Note applied only when there were not sufficient candidates who possessed driving licence to drive heavy passenger motor vehicles and heavy goods vehicles. Then alone candidates without such licence can be considered and can be allowed, if selected, to acquire that licence within the period of probation. The heavy licence being an obligatory one in terms of R.4(b), one without such licence can be considered in the light of Note under that Rule only when there are no such sufficient candidates with such licence. The petitioner has no case in this original petition that there is such a situation. The Public Service Commission cannot be taken as unaware of the Rule. It is taking note of the rule that they rejected the application of the petitioner. That means, there are sufficient candidates with licence to drive heavy passenger/ goods vehicles. The petitioner has no case in this original petition that there is such a situation. The Public Service Commission cannot be taken as unaware of the Rule. It is taking note of the rule that they rejected the application of the petitioner. That means, there are sufficient candidates with licence to drive heavy passenger/ goods vehicles. So, the petitioner who admittedly did not possess such licence on the last date fixed to submit the application cannot be considered and his application was rightly rejected by Ext. P7. 6. Merely because the petitioner had been asked to cure the defects in the application and was allowed to sit in the written test, his application cannot be taken as valid, as he had not satisfied the requirement stated in the notification or in the special rules. By reason of sitting for the examination, no right is accrued. No promise is made out to the petitioner. If the petitioner is not eligible in terms of statutory rules governing recruitment, for being selected and if he does not possess qualification prescribed by the rules, his application is liable to be rejected as rightly done by Ext. P7. 7. The petitioner's application was rejected on another ground that his experience as a trainee, is not acceptable. What is required as per the notification is work experience in a recognised motor. work shop where heavy goods vehicles and passenger vehicles are repaired. This qualification is insisted as per the Government of India notification issued under S.213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Ext. P9. The Note in the Special Rule is not applicable to want of this qualification. Therefore, one should possess the work experience. Experience will always be when a person is working in a category. The knowledge gained by a trainee is not work experience, because the trainee is not a worker, but only a learner. So, during the period of training, one does not get experience, but only gets learning. Admittedly by the petitioner, he was only a "paid mechanic trainee", as per Ext. P6 certificate of experience. Whatever the knowledge the petitioner gained as a paid mechanic trainee, is not the work experience; but only a learning as learnee. A trainee is not a workman, but only learned. Thus, on that ground also, the petitioner cannot be said to be qualified in terms of Ext. P1. 8. P6 certificate of experience. Whatever the knowledge the petitioner gained as a paid mechanic trainee, is not the work experience; but only a learning as learnee. A trainee is not a workman, but only learned. Thus, on that ground also, the petitioner cannot be said to be qualified in terms of Ext. P1. 8. The petitioner seeks a declaration that insistence of such qualification in clause ?) of Ext. P1 notification is illegal. Admittedly by the petitioner, Government of Indias issued a statutory notification, Ext. P9 and this notification provides for such qualification of 'work experience' for one year in a reputed work shop. The petitioners not challenge Ext. P9. When there is a statutory notification governing the qualifications essential for the post, the Pubic Service Commission, the recruiting agency, cannot ignore it, while inviting application for selection. Government of India & got power to issue such notification as contained in S.213 of the Motor Vehicles :t. So, the petitioner cannot get such a declaration. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to all or any of the reliefs night for in the original petition, and it is dismissed.