Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The petitioner was an applicant to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, when the Public Service Commission notified recruitment to the said post as per Ext. P1. The notification insisted that the applicant should have passed SSLC examination, Diploma in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering and should have acquired work experience for one year after acquisition of basic qualification and also should possess license to drive Motor Vehicles including two wheelers. The petitioner's application was rejected as seen from Ext. P7 as he did not satisfy the experience as required in Ext. P1 notification. Admittedly by the petitioner, the experience he possesses is stretching for one year comprising the period before the declaration of the result in diploma examination. In other words, he does not have one year work experience after the declaration of the result of the diploma examination, at the time of making the application. The issue therefore, in this case is whether the work experience for one year stretching a period even before the declaration of result of the diploma examination is sufficient for appointment to the post. 2. The petitioner contends that a notification was issued under S.213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 which enabled the Central Government to fix qualification, for Motor Vehicles Inspectors which included Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector. That notification did not specify that the experience shall be one acquired after the declaration of the result of diploma examination. A similar issue was considered by the Supreme Court with reference to the appointment in Maharashtra State service as per the decision reported in Subhash, S/o. Shriram Dhonde v. State of Maharashtra & Ann (1995 Supp. (3) SCC 332) and it was held by the Apex Court that so long as the said notification did not insist. for the work experience especially one gained after the declaration of the result of the diploma examination, the experience that had been to one's credit even during the period before declaration of the said result can be taken note of. It is also contended that the requirement as contained in R.10(ab) of the General Rules in K.S.& G.S.R. only specifies that the experience shall be one gained after acquiring the basic qualification prescribed for the post. In this case, the basic qualification is only SSLC and not Diploma in Automobile or Mechanical Engineering, the petitioner contends. It is also contended that the requirement as contained in R.10(ab) of the General Rules in K.S.& G.S.R. only specifies that the experience shall be one gained after acquiring the basic qualification prescribed for the post. In this case, the basic qualification is only SSLC and not Diploma in Automobile or Mechanical Engineering, the petitioner contends. The total experience to his credit is after acquisition of that basic qualification of SSLC, the petitioner contends. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's application on the ground that he did not have sufficient experience, as per Ext. P7 is illegal and the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment, the petitioner contends. 3. His true that in the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, it had been held as contended by the petitioner. But a reading of the said decision will not disclose that in the Maharashtra rules governing service there was a clause like R.10(ab) as in the general rules in the K.S.& S.S.R. Therefore, the recruitment to the State or Subordinate Service shall always be governed also by the provisions contained in R.10(ab). As per Ext. P1, pass in SSLC and pass in Diploma examination, working experience and possession of driving license are the required qualifications, without differentiating them as basic, general or special. There are the minimum required qualifications for appointment to the said post. As per R.10(aa) of the General Rules, SSLC is referred to as "the minimum general educational qualification". It is not the basic qualification. Basic qualification is one which equips an incumbent to perform the duties attached to the post in question. Functions attached to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector can be performed only if an incumbent possesses Diploma in automobile/ mechanical Engineering. Without that, the incumbent will be a misfit to the service. Therefore, that is the basic qualification which equips the incumbent to perform the duties. SSLC is only a general education qualification and not the basic qualification so far as this post is concerned. The notification requires that the incumbent should have work experience for the required period after acquiring the basic qualification. Therefore, such experience shall be one gained after passing of the basic qualification, that is, after declaration of the resultof the diploma examination. The notification requires that the incumbent should have work experience for the required period after acquiring the basic qualification. Therefore, such experience shall be one gained after passing of the basic qualification, that is, after declaration of the resultof the diploma examination. When the general rules relating to the service thus specifically deals with general educational qualification differentiating the basic qualification, necessarily, the decision of the Supreme Court as referred to above, relating to Maharashtra Service Rules cannot help the petitioner to contend otherwise. Moreover, this Court in the decision reported in Sirajudheen v. Public Service Commission (1998 (2) KLT 1046) has held in connection with the recommitment to the very same post with reference to Ext. P1 notification itself that the experience should be one gained after passing of the diploma examination. I have followed that decision in my judgment in O.P. No. 14127 of 1997 and connected cases. 4. Even otherwise, Ext. P1 notification does not militate against the notification issued by the Government of India under S.213 of the Motor Vehicles Act. That notification only prescribed the minimum necessary qualification for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector. All such qualifications are required in terms of Ext. P1 also. Even if the experience is insisted to be one gained after acquisition of the diploma qualification it cannot be said that Ext. P1 notification offends the Government of India notification under S.213 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On another ground also, the petitioner cannot save himself. Notification like Ext. P1 is a public invitation of applications for appointment to the post. In such circumstances, it is incumbent on the recruiting agency to follow the notification in strict terms because that is a matter not only concerning appointee and. the recruiting agency, but also, several other persons, who had aspired for submitting the application, but could not do because of the specification in the notification. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors, v. Chander Shekhar & Ors. (1997 (4) SCC 18) as follows: "An advertisement or notification issued/ published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors, v. Chander Shekhar & Ors. (1997 (4) SCC 18) as follows: "An advertisement or notification issued/ published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to i t. One reason behind th is proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. Their applications ought to have been rejected at the inception itself." A Division Bench of this Court also considered a similar issue concerning the very same recruitment, and held as per the decision reported in Rajesh Kumar v. Public Service Commission (1998 (2) KLT 945) that the Public Service Commission is bound to follow the specification regarding the qualification in the notification. So, on any count, the petitioner cannot validly assail Ext. P7. The original petition fails. Dismissed. No costs.