JUDGMENT 1. - All the writ petitioners possess the certificates of three years course Mechanical Engineering Diploma. They fulfil the academic educational qualifications for the post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector. As many as 89 post of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspectors (hereinafter called as 'Sub- Inspector') were advertised on 15.4.1995. The candidates possessing the qualifications for direct recruitment were eligible to be considered. The qualifications are prescribed as under : "(1) minimum general educational qualification of a pass in X standard; and (2) a diploma in Automobile Engineer (three year 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 work shop 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 drive motor cycle, 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." 2. The qualifications prescribed for promotional quota i.e. 25% are that the LDCs with certificate of Mechanical Engineering is eligible for selection. The condition of the driving licence is not essential so far as promotional quota is concerned. All the writ petitioners submit that the qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment quota viz-a-viz. the promotees amount to hostile discrimination and, therefore, the qualification in regard to possession of driving licence is discriminatory if compared with direct recruitment quota. Therefore, a common prayer has been made to quash the impugned orders in respect of writ petitioners (Order dated 11.4.1996 Ex. 13 in the case of Anil Kumar, Order dated 20.2.1996 Annex. 3 in Bajrang Lal's case, Order dated 20.2.1996 Annex. 8 and 9 in the case of Vishnu Dutt and order dated 20.2.1996 Annex. 9 and 10 in the case of Sanjay Sharma). A further prayer has been made to declare ultra vires the condition Nos. 3 and 4 of Clause 3 of Schedule I of the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Services Rules, 1963. 3. 8 and 9 in the case of Vishnu Dutt and order dated 20.2.1996 Annex. 9 and 10 in the case of Sanjay Sharma). A further prayer has been made to declare ultra vires the condition Nos. 3 and 4 of Clause 3 of Schedule I of the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Services Rules, 1963. 3. All the candidates had appeared in the examination subject to fulfilling the qualifications and their candidature was cancelled either on the ground that they do not possess the requisite qualification of holding licence or they are overage or do not fulfil one or the other qualification. 4. It is the submission of the petitioners that for the reason that no such qualifications have been prescribed for promotional quota, therefore, the mandatory prescribed qualification for direct recruitment quota in Condition Nos. 3 and 4 be declared ultra vires i.e. the condition of working experience of at least one year in Automobile Workshop and of passing a driving licence of heavy vehicle. 5. In my opinion, there is no merit in the submission of the counsel for the petitioners. 6. It is also submitted that previously there was no such qualification and by way of amendment such qualification has been added so far as direct recruitment is concerned. Previously only ITI with Matric qualification was prescribed. 7. The qualifications for the recruitment of Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspectors have been prescribed by the Central Government as per sub-section (4) of Section 213 of the Motor Vehicle Act for direct recruitment. So far as qualification prescribed under the Rajasthan Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 for promotions, are to be made from amongst L.D.Cs of the Transport Department who possess the certificate of Automobile Engineering or who have passed the departmental examination in Automobile Engineering. 8. The Central Government had issued a notification on 12.6.1989 prescribing the qualification for the recruitment in question as per the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Notification was issued on 12.6.1989. On the notification having been issued, the State Government also accordingly amended its rules by incorporating the new qualifications. No fault can be found in providing the qualifications as required under the law. Even otherwise, the qualifications can be changed or modified by incorporating in the rules, and on such qualifications having been modified, no vested right is violated of any of the candidate. No fault can be found in providing the qualifications as required under the law. Even otherwise, the qualifications can be changed or modified by incorporating in the rules, and on such qualifications having been modified, no vested right is violated of any of the candidate. It is settled law that the eligibility of the candidates is to be taken at the time when the advertisement is made. A similar matter had come up for adjudication before this Court at Jodhpur in the cause of Bansidhar Sharma v. State, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1210/95 decided on 26.11.1997 and this Court had upheld the qualification prescribed. Reiterating the aforesaid judgment, I hold that it is for the Government to prescribe the qualification and no fault can be found in the rules and rejection of the candidature of the petitioners who do not fall or fulfil the prescribed qualifications on the date of submitting the applications. 9. In Anil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2219/96 : 1997(3) SCT 581 (RAJASTHAN); it was submitted that even though the petitioner was not qualified at the time of submission of application, but he was duly qualified at the time of interview. It is further submitted that all the petitioners were allowed to appear in the examination and were interviewed and if it is later on found that any of the petitioner was not in possession of the required qualification at the time of making of the application but had acquired the qualification later on, he is entitled to be appointed against the post. For the said proposition counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment of Ashok Kumar Sharma and another v. Chander Shekhar and another, 1993 Supp.(2) SCC 611 : 1993(2) SCT 208 (SC); and Arunaben T. Bhojak v. Secy., Ahmedabad Education Society, Lal Bhawan, 1995(3) SCC 120 : 1995(3) SCT 406 (SC); 10. The facts of Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar and another (supra) are distinguishable. That was a case for the recruitment of the Engineers, the candidates had already appeared in B.E. (Civil) Examination, but the result had not been declared. They had applied for recruitment. The result was declared later on but before the appointment. The facts of Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar and another (supra) are distinguishable. That was a case for the recruitment of the Engineers, the candidates had already appeared in B.E. (Civil) Examination, but the result had not been declared. They had applied for recruitment. The result was declared later on but before the appointment. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in such a situation where the persons have already appeared in the qualifying examination, but the result has not been declared, they should not be deprived of their right of consideration and in such situation it is not necessary that the persons should be qualified on the last date of submitting the applications. 11. In Arunaben T. Bhojak (referred to above) for the post reserved for Scheduled Castes when the Scheduled Caste candidate is available, the Supreme Court held that even though requisite experience was gained by the petitioner later on, she was eligible for appointment. 12. The counsel for the respondents relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, JT 1993(1) SC 220 : 1993(2) SCT 279 (SC); wherein the Supreme Court had categorically held that the candidates selected must be qualified on the last date of making of applications for the post in question on the date specifically mentioned in the advertisement or the modification for the purpose. 13. In Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi's case (supra) University had invited applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors (Lecturers). The last date for obtaining the applications was 14.11.1983. The minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of Lecturer as laid down was a Doctorate degree or research work of an equally high standard, good academic record with at least a second class Master's degree. It was observed by the Supreme Court that the qualifications of the candidates should be examined with a reference to the last date of making applications. It was observed as under : "A. The University must note that the qualifications it advertises for the posts should not be at variance with those prescribed by its Ordinance/Statutes. B. The candidates selected must be qualified as on the date for making applications for the post in questions or on the date to be specifically mentioned in the advertisement/notification for the purpose. B. The candidates selected must be qualified as on the date for making applications for the post in questions or on the date to be specifically mentioned in the advertisement/notification for the purpose. The qualifications acquired by the candidates after the said date should not be taken into consideration, as that would be arbitrary and result in discrimination. It must be remembered that when the advertisement/notification represents that the candidates must have the qualifications in question, with reference to the last date for making the applications or with reference to the specific date mentioned for the purpose, those who do not have such qualifications do not apply for the posts even though they are likely to acquire such qualifications and do acquire them after the said date. In the circumstances, many who would otherwise be entitled to be considered and may even by better than those who apply, can have a legitimate grievance since they are left out of consideration." 14. The abovesaid guidelines squarely cover the present case and all the four writ petitions lack merit and are dismissed as there is no discrimination involved for direct recruitment of the candidates. The petitioners have not asked for quashing of the qualifications meant for promotional quota. However, it is high time that as already noted in the judgment Banshidhar Sharma (supra) this court had already noticed that if possession of driving licence of heavy vehicle/transport vehicle is an essential qualification for direct recruitment mainly for the purpose that the Sub-Inspectors are required to check the vehicles and they should know the driving and mechanism of the vehicles, but it is not understood as to why this very qualification for the same kind work has not been prescribed for the promotional recruitment quota. Such like qualifications shall enhance the competency of the incumbents. If it is so essential for direct recruitment, it becomes equally essential for the employees being recruited from promotional quota. However, it is upto the Government to reconsider by making of suitable amendment in the qualifications of direct recruitment vis-a-vis promotional quota for the post of Sub- Inspector Motor Vehicle. The earlier it is done, better it would be. 15. For the reasons mentioned above, all the four writ petitions are dismissed with no costs.Petitions dismissed. *******