V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) IN these two writ petitions, except the petitioners are different, not only the respondents are common but the facts, the prayers and the point involved are all common. Hence, these two writ petitions were heard and disposed of together. ( 2 ) THE petitioners have submitted applications as per Annexure-B for a license to act as Surveyors and Loss Assessors to the first respondent. Their applications had been returned with a covering letter as per Annexures-D on the ground that they do not possess the prescribed qualification. Aggrieved by the same have filed these writ petitions seeking a direction to the respondents to grant them the licenses. The petitioners have asserted that they possessed the requisite qualifications and the rejection of their applications were illegal and arbitrary. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS have filed objections to the writ petition. A preliminary objection is raised that the writ petitions are not maintainable as there is no infringement of any fundamental or legal right of the petitioners. It is stated that the petitioners did not fulfil the qualifications prescribed. ( 4 ) THE short point for consideration in these writ petitions is, whether the petitioners possess the requisite qualification? ( 5 ) IN paragraph 4 of the counter, the qualifications for the grant of license are mentioned. One of the qualifications mentioned in Clause (d) therein is Degree or Diploma of any recognised University or institute in relation to Insurance. Along with the writ petitions the petitioners have produced the certificate as per Annexure-A for having passed the Degree of Bachelor of Commerce and the subject is Insurance. In the face of these certificates, it cannot be said that the petitioners do not possess the requisite qualification. Therefore, the rejection of petitioners' applications on the ground that they do not possess the requisite qualification, is baseless and cannot be sustained. ( 6 ) IT is also pertinent to note that in Clause (c) of Item 7 in the application from prescribed as per Annexure-C, the qualification mentioned is, a degree or diploma of any recognised university or institute in relation to insurance. In respect of the application submitted by the petitioner in W. P. No. 24058/98, an addition is found as "bachelor of Commerce with Insurance. " Mr. In respect of the application submitted by the petitioner in W. P. No. 24058/98, an addition is found as "bachelor of Commerce with Insurance. " Mr. S. K. V. Chalapathy, learned counsel for the respondents submits that this is inserted by the candidate in his own handwriting and this shows his conduct. He therefore submits that the Writ Petition No. 24058/98 is liable to be rejected. ( 7 ) WHATEVER may be the position, the fact remains that the petitioners possess the requisite qualification. Therefore, the rejection of their applications on the ground that they do not have the requisite qualification is bad in law. As long as the petitioners possess the requisite qualification, there ends the matter. In the light of the illegal and arbitrary rejection of their application, mere technicalities will not take away their right for consideration of their applications. It should also be noted that the application of the petitioner who had added the words on the application is not rejected on that ground. Once the Court Prima facie found the ground of rejection was not available, the Court shall not hesitate to give suitable direction to reconsider the matter. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petitions are allowed. The first respondent is hereby directed to re-consider and dispose of the applications of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks after the applications are re-submitted by the petitioners within three weeks. --- *** --- .