BRIJESH KUMAR, CJ. — The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated September 4, 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 112/98. By means of the above noted Civil Rule, the petitioner had impugned the order of cancellation of appointment as Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Laitkar, Meghalaya. The petition was, however , dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 2. We have heard Shri B.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri B.P. Todi, learned counsel appearing for the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. 3. The brief facts are that in response to an advertisement issued on February 24, 1995, the petitioner-appellant applied for the post of Principal of the Kendriya Vidyalaya. The essential qualifications and the experience required as per advertisement were: "Essential qualifications: (i) At least Second Class Master's Degree (45% marks and above considered as equivalent) in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Zoology, Botany, English, Hindi, Sanskrit, History, Geography, Commerce or Economics. (ii) A Degree or post Graduate Degree/ Diploma in Teaching/Education. (iii) At least 10 years experience including minimum 7 years teaching experience in Senior Secondary or Higher levels in recognised Institutions and minimum of 3 years experience in educational administration. Experience in Educational Administration is defined as under: (a) As Principal/Headmaster of a High School/ Hr. Secondary School / Inter college/Degree college, or (b) As Vice Principal of Higher Secondary School/Inter College/Degree College or Head of Department in a Degree College/ University Teachers Training College, or (c) As House Master in Public/Sainik School or as officer in Army Education Corps, or (d)As a Vice-Principal in a Kendriya Vidyalaya for 3 years or more, or (e) As a Vice-Principal and/or as PGT in Kendriya Vidyalaya for atleast 15 years, or (f) As Vice-Principal and/or as PGT in Kendriya Vidyalaya for atleast 10 years in case of those who have passed the Departmental Examination. Desirable: (i) Working knowledge of Hindi and English. (ii) Experience in organising Games & Sports and Co-curricular activities. Relaxation for SC/ST candidates: In case sufficient number of SC/ST candidates are not forthcoming to fill up vacancies, the competent authority can consider relaxing administrative experience to the following extent: Five years educational experience including 3 years teaching experience at Senior Secondary or Higher Levels in recognised institutions and 2 years experience in educational administration. Relaxation for SC/ST candidates: In case sufficient number of SC/ST candidates are not forthcoming to fill up vacancies, the competent authority can consider relaxing administrative experience to the following extent: Five years educational experience including 3 years teaching experience at Senior Secondary or Higher Levels in recognised institutions and 2 years experience in educational administration. In case of existing PGTs and Vice-Principals in KVS belonging to SC/ST communities, who have completed 10 years of service as PGT and/or Vice-Principal as on 31.12.94, the required administrative experience will be relaxed altogether. Departmental Examination: All selected candidates will have to pass the Departmental Examination in Administrative and Academic matters and Financial Rules within 3 years from the date of their joining as Principal. In case they fail to pass the said Examination within 3 years they will not be confirmed in the post till they qualify in the said examination. Selected candidates may also be required to undergo a training course before actual appointment/ posting. Probation: Selected candidates will be placed on probation for two years which is extendable by one years, if necessary." 4. The petitioner- appellant applied under the OBC category. He was selected and appointed as Principal by means of Appointment Letter dated 21.7.95. He was, however, served with the notice of show cause dated 21.3.97 as to why his appointment as Principal should not be cancelled as he did not possess the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post of Principal in Kendriya Vidyalaya, namely, "(A) As experience in Educational Administration as PGT in Kendriya Vidyalaya for at least 15 years; or As PGT in Kendriya Vidyalaya for at least 10 years in case of those who have passed the Departmental Examination. "The notice further mentions that the petitioner-appellant was not eligible for the post of Principal as no relaxation in experience in educational administration is given to candidates belonging to OBC category. 5. The petitioner-appellant submitted his reply to the show cause notice by letter dated 23.4.97, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-VII to the Civil Rule. It has been indicated that in column 12 it was clearly mentioned that he was awaiting the results of Departmental Examinations, 1994 and it was further indicated that he had already completed 10 years as PGT in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan having joined as PGT on 19.1.84. It has been indicated that in column 12 it was clearly mentioned that he was awaiting the results of Departmental Examinations, 1994 and it was further indicated that he had already completed 10 years as PGT in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan having joined as PGT on 19.1.84. It is also indicated in the reply that nothing was suppressed by the petitioner-appellant and all information was indicated in the form on consideration whereof he was called for the interview and was selected by the Selection Committee. The petitioner-appellant also mentioned that he had indicated that his Ph.D. in English was inadvertently not fed in the computer data and he requested the authority for inclusion of his Ph.D. in the qualification so that he be given weightage of Ph.D. It is also indicated that he was conferred the honour of National Award, 1995. Personal hearing also seems to have been provided and ultimately by order dated 23/29.12.97 his appointment was cancelled. As his total experience as PGT was 134 months and not 15 years and he had not passed the departmental examination till the last date of receipt of the application, namely, April 10,1995 on which date result was only awaited, therefore, he did not fulfil the essential qualifications. 6. It appears that according to the case of the respondents, as per terms of the advertisement, a candidate having experience of 10 years teaching as PGT should have passed the departmental examination so as to be entitled for consideration, otherwise one had to have 15 years experience as such. The advertisement was made on 24.2.95. The last date for submission of the application was 10.4.95. The selection was held on 22.6.95. He was appointed on 21.7.95. The petitioner-appellant had appeared in the departmental examination held in December, 1994, result of which was declared on 23.8.95 that is to say that till 10.4.95 which was the last date of application, the petitioner-appellant had not passed the departmental examination, nor on the date of selection or appointment, it is though no doubt true that he had appeared in the departmental examination before the advertisement, namely, in December, 1994, but the result was out only after the selection and appointment was made. The fact that he had already appeared in examination and the result was being awaited was indicated in the application form. 7. The fact that he had already appeared in examination and the result was being awaited was indicated in the application form. 7. In so far the question of relaxation in the qualifications is concerned, the case of the respondents is that relaxation is not admissible to the OBC candidates. In this connection our attention has been drawn to the advertisement which provides for relaxation for SC/ST candidates. It does not mention for any relaxation in so far it relates to OBC candidates. 8. The learned Single Judge held that a candidate must possess the required qualifications on the date of making of the application failing which he will not be entitled for consideration. Acquisition of qualification later on would be of no avail and in support of that proposition, the learned Single Judge relied upon the case reported in (1997) 4 SCC18 (Ashok Kumar Sharma-vs-Chander Shekhar and others). 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the advertisement has two parts, one relating to the essential qualifications and the other relating to the experience in educational administration and there is yet third sub-head which mentions about desirable qualifications. Under the essential qualifications, one is required to have at least 2nd Class Master Degree in the given subjects or a degree of post Graduate and thirdly, at least 10 years experience including minimum 7 years teaching experience in Senior Secondary or Higher levels in recognised institutions and minimum of 3 years experience in educational administration. As to what constitutes educational administration, has further been indicated. It provides for that one may have acted as Vice-Principal or PGT in Kendriya Vidyalaya for at least 10 years, in case of those who have passed the Departmental Examination. It is submitted that experience in educational administration cannot be read as an essential qualification which are enumerated under clauses (i) to (iii) in the advertisement which includes 10 years experience including minimum 7 years teaching experience in Senior Secondary or Higher levels in recognised institutions and minimum 3 years experience in educational administration. In the alternative, other clauses are indicated including Clause (f). On the basis of above, it is submitted that the petitioner-appellant in no way can be said to be lacking in essential qualifications. 10. It is, however, difficult to draw any such distinction beneficially in the case, as submitted before us on the ground of essential qualification and other qualifications. In the alternative, other clauses are indicated including Clause (f). On the basis of above, it is submitted that the petitioner-appellant in no way can be said to be lacking in essential qualifications. 10. It is, however, difficult to draw any such distinction beneficially in the case, as submitted before us on the ground of essential qualification and other qualifications. The petitioner-appellant does not dispute before us that in this case clause (f) is applicable i.e. he should have 10 years experience as Vice-Principal and/ or as PGT in Kendriya Vidyalaya with having passed the departmental examination. It was thus a requirement for being eligible to apply. The petitioner-appellant had about 11 years experience as PGT, but at the time he had applied for the post of the Principal, he had till then not passed the departmental examination. He had appeared before applying for the post, but the result was not out till after the appointment of the petitioner-appellant. It would, thus, be a case where the petitioner-appellant acquired the qualification required during the course of the employment. 11. The argument of the appellant that experience/experience in educational administration is not part of "essential qualifications" can also not be accepted for the reason that under the heading "Essential Qualifications", 3 clauses of qualifications are indicated, first relating to educational qualification in the given subjects with certain percentage of marks, the second clause also relates to educational qualification in Teaching/ Education and the third clause under the same heading of essential qualifications relates to experience/experience in educational administration. The three clauses are part of the same condition and one cannot be separated from the other on the ground that one may be essential qualification and the other may not be so. For the purposes of being entitled to or qualified for consideration or to be an applicant, one must fulfil the requirement as indicated in clauses, (i) to (iii) under the heading "Essential Qualifications". Unless one qualifies in experience as required under cause (iii), he will not be entitled to apply for the post in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Merely because one clause of the "Essential qualifications" relates to educational qualification and the other relates to experience, it does not make the last clause non-essential, or a non-qualificatory condition for entitlement to apply. All the three conditions are essential according to advertisement. 12. Merely because one clause of the "Essential qualifications" relates to educational qualification and the other relates to experience, it does not make the last clause non-essential, or a non-qualificatory condition for entitlement to apply. All the three conditions are essential according to advertisement. 12. For certain jobs as in the case in hand, an applicant must fulfil certain conditions which may either relate to the educational qualifications or another kind of condition relevant for the purposes of job requirement. Clause (iii) under the heading of essential qualifications in this case relates to teaching experience of 10 years as PGT in case one has passed the departmental examination, which examination it appears relates to matters like administrative, academic and financial Rules etc. as it may have been thought necessary for holding the post of Principal. Therefore, a candidate would be eligible or qualified to apply only if he has required years of experience with further qualification of having passed the departmental examination. 13. So far the relaxation in qualification is concerned, according to the advertisement, the relaxation could be made for SC/ST candidates. The petitioner-appellant belongs to OBC category. According to the advertisement, in relation to those who had put in 10 years of service as PGT as on 31.12.94 belonging to SC/ST Category, required administrative experience will be relaxed altogether. It is submitted that in case of non-availability of suitable SC/ST candidates, the provision for reservation in favour of OBC would be applicable. In connection with this submission, reliance has been placed by the appellant on Annexure-A and A-l annexed along with his affidavit dated March 15,1999 filed in opposition to the application filed by the respondents praying for vacating the interim order. Annexure-A seems to be a Circular issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Admn), Office of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, addressed to all Assistant Commissioners, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, subject of the circular being reservation for other backward classes in posts and services under Government of India. The Circular Number is P. 20-1/94-KVS9RP-II. No date, however, is indicated in the copy. By means of the above noted circular, strict compliance with the letters mentioned therein has been instructed. Annexure-A1 is the copy of the letter mentioned at SI. No. 2 of the Circular Annexure-A. It is dated October 13, 1994 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training). By means of the above noted circular, strict compliance with the letters mentioned therein has been instructed. Annexure-A1 is the copy of the letter mentioned at SI. No. 2 of the Circular Annexure-A. It is dated October 13, 1994 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training). This memorandum is issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India. It provides as under :"The undersigned is directed to refer to paragraph 4 of O.M. No. 36012/22/93 Estt. SCT) dated 22.10.1993 and subsequent clarificatory O.M. No. 36012/2293-E STT. (SCT) dated 3.2.1994 on the above subject and to say that in respect of written examination and interview, in order to fulfil the quota earmarked to OBCs, relaxation of standards may be provided to OBC candidates as in the case of SC/ST candidates." The above Office Memorandum dated October 13, 1994 envisages a situation where some reservation has been provided in favour of SC/ST candidates and to fulfil that object some relaxation as admissible in written examination and interview, the same would also be applicable in case of OBC candidates with a view to fulfil the quota earmarked for them. It is thus clear that the said Office Memorandum does not provide for any reservation in favour of OBC candidates. The advertisement says about relaxation from required administrative experience. (It does not relate to relaxation of having the qualification of passing the departmental examination.) The Memorandum dated 13.10.94 seems to be on a different subject and would be applicable where there is already a quota reserved for SC/ST and OBC. The whole proposition seems to be that in case of reservation quota for SC/ ST some relaxation in respect of written examination or interview, is permissible for them, the same would also be applicable in respect of OBC. It does not in any manner create quota in favour of OBC in case there exists none in their favour. All that it provides is that the relaxation admissible to SC/ST candidates in interview and written examination, the same would also be applicable in case of OBC candidate, but obviously, where there is reservation in their favour. It does not in any manner create quota in favour of OBC in case there exists none in their favour. All that it provides is that the relaxation admissible to SC/ST candidates in interview and written examination, the same would also be applicable in case of OBC candidate, but obviously, where there is reservation in their favour. As indicated earlier, from the advertisement it is clear that competent authority can consider relaxing the administrative experience in case of SC/ST candidates, in the event sufficient number of them are not available for filling up the vacancies. The extent to which relaxation in administrative experience would be admissible is also indicated in the advertisement itself. (The relaxation clause in the advertisement in no way provides for relaxation in qualification of having passed the departmental examination.) According to the own case of the petitioner-appellant, with the given period of experience, he was required to have passed departmental examination. Therefore, the plea which has been raised that the petitioner-appellant is entitled for relaxation in qualification as may be admissible to the SC/ST candidates is not made out. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has placed reliance upon certain decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to contend that in case the petitioner-appellant is otherwise educationally qualified and has been selected by a selection committee of highly qualified experts, the appointment should not be cancelled merely on the ground that the petitioner had not passed the departmental examination on the date of advertisement. The case of Dr. Kumar Bar Das-v.-Utkal University and others. (1999) 1 SCC 453 has been referred to. In that case the requirement of experience was that the candidate should have "about" 10 years experience of teaching and/or research . The appellant had experience of less than 10 years, namely, about 9 years and 1 month combining the teaching and research experience. It was held that it would be taken that the candidate had the required qualification of about 10 years experience in teaching and research. It was held that Chancellor's view that the experience must be a minimum of 10 years was not correct. We feel that this case would not be helpful to the petitioner-appellant as in the present case the petitioner-appellant had not passed departmental examination as required in the qualification column of the advertisement. It was held that Chancellor's view that the experience must be a minimum of 10 years was not correct. We feel that this case would not be helpful to the petitioner-appellant as in the present case the petitioner-appellant had not passed departmental examination as required in the qualification column of the advertisement. There was no dispute about the fact that the petitioner-appellant did possess 10 years teaching experience. The other case which has been referred to is reported in AIR 1966 SC 2165 (Ashok V. David-Vs-Union of India and others). This case also does not help the petitioner-appellant since it related to wrong placement of the appellants in the seniority list who had though completed period of probation successfully in 1976 but formal order of confirmation was issued in the year 1986. There was thus Jump over at the time of promotion to the cadre of I.A.S. in the year 1983 when others were considered. Considering the proposition that confirmation being "glorious uncertainty" in the service career, the appellants could not be made to suffer for that reason and had to be given proper seniority, once they were accommodated against the vacancies of 1962. In that view of the matter they were held to be eligible for consideration in 1983. These facts cannot be equated with the facts and circumstances of the present case where the petitioner-appellant had not passed the departmental examination as required though he had appeared in the examination at the relevant time. Yet another decision which has been referred to is reported in (1993) 3 SCC 591 (Dr. M. S. Mudhol and another V.S.D. Halegkar and others). In this case the requirement was that the candidates must have Master degree with at least second division. The appellant had M.A. degree but with third division and M.Ed, degree with second division. It was held that M.Ed, degree was not Equivalent to M.A. degree. But in view of the fact that the appellant had already worked as Principal of a Higher Secondary School for 9 years and he was selected despite having disclosed his qualification, it was not considered a fit case for issue of a writ of quo warrant on equitable principles. At the time of decision he had already held the post for 13 years. At the time of decision he had already held the post for 13 years. The other fact which was taken into account was that there was no fault on his part as he had projected the correct facts and qualification as possessed by him and despite that he was selected by the Committee. The Committee was, therefore, aware of the position, hence it would be inequitable to make the appellant suffer at that late stage, it was though held that Director of Education had committed a clear error of law in approving the academic qualifications though he was not qualified. In the present case, the appointment was made on 21.7.95 and the show cause notice for cancellation of order of appointment was given to the appellant on 21.3.97 i.e. to say much before completion of two years from the date of appointment. The petitioner-appellant by now has been working for about 5 years in view of the interim orders passed by this Court. 15. In the present case as indicated earlier, the petitioner-appellant had already appeared in the departmental examination, but had applied for (he post before the result was declared. This fact he had given out in his application. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any misrepresentation on his part. I le was also selected by the selection committee and was given appointment. According to the respondents, this fact could be detected later on. In the meantime the result of departmental examination was declared and the appellant was successful though it was after the appointment was given to the petitioner-appellant that is to say he did not have requisite qualification on the day he applied, the date on which selection was held as well as the date on which the appointment was made. It is also true that for late declaration of the results, the petitioner-appellant cannot be held responsible in any manner. The departmental examination was held in December, 1994, but the result was out only in August, 1995. Yet the fact remains that in February, 1995 and on 10.4.95 which was the last date for submission of the application he had not passed the departmental examination. A case involving similar situation was considered in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra). The departmental examination was held in December, 1994, but the result was out only in August, 1995. Yet the fact remains that in February, 1995 and on 10.4.95 which was the last date for submission of the application he had not passed the departmental examination. A case involving similar situation was considered in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra). It has been clearly said that a candidate must fulfil the required qualification on the last date for submission of the application and acquisition of the qualification subsequently would not be taken into account as in that event other persons who had not applied for the reason that they did not possess the required qualification on the date of application, they would be deprived of that opportunity. Otherwise if they had known, they could also have applied for the post even though may not be having the required qualification on the date of application. It cannot be said that the learned Single Judge in any manner faulted in relying upon the decision in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra). About the submission that there was no fault on the part of the appellant in the late declaration of result rather it was own fault of the administration, hence the petitioner-appellant should not be made to suffer, it is observed as follows in paragraph 7 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra): "7.. ....... learned counsel for the 33 candidates, submitted that these 33 candidates appeared for the B.E. examination prior to their applying for the post and that there was some delay in publishing the results and that these respondents cannot be punished for the delay on the part of the authorities concerned in publishing the results. In our opinion, the said contention is beside the point. In these proceedings, we cannot examine the reasons for delay- assuming that there was delay in publishing the result. That issue is outside the purview of the writ petition. Whatever may be the reason, the 33 persons, were not qualified as on the prescribed date and therefore, could not have been allowed to appear for the interview. In these proceedings, we cannot examine the reasons for delay- assuming that there was delay in publishing the result. That issue is outside the purview of the writ petition. Whatever may be the reason, the 33 persons, were not qualified as on the prescribed date and therefore, could not have been allowed to appear for the interview. On the first issue (mentioned in the order dated 1.9.1995), therefore, we hold in favour of the review petitioners, affirming the opinion of Sahai, J." 16, There is no occasion to argue that the administration is trying to take advantage of its own default since it is not the question of the administration getting any advantage, but it is a case of correcting a mistake which occurred earlier, after giving due notice to show cause to the petitioner-appellant. The petitioner-appellant did not fulfil the requisite requirements as per advertisement is not denied by the petitioner-appellant. In the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) although the Supreme Court held the appointments to be illegal, but taking several facts and circumstances into consideration invoked Article 142 of the Constitution in not disturbing the existing position in review petition . In the case in hand, if others, who had 10 years experience as PGT but had not passed the departmental examination, knew that such candidates could also be considered, perhaps such persons may have also applied for the post but have not done so in view of the conditions laid down under Clause (iii) of essential qualifications of the advertisement. Thus acceptance of the argument of the petitioner-appellant may result in discriminatory treatment in his favour. 17. In view of the discussion held above, we find no good reason to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned Single judge. The appeal thus fails. It is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed. There would, however, be no order as to costs. D.N. CHOWDHURY, J - 18. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment to be rendered by the learned Chief Justice. I, however, regret my inability to concur with the aforementioned judgment of the learned Chief Justice for the reasons to be mentioned hereinafter. 19. The learned Chief Justice analysed the facts with precision and I have nothing to add to those facts except some abstracts to be outlined below. The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, hereinafter referred to as the KV Sangathan, vide Advt. 19. The learned Chief Justice analysed the facts with precision and I have nothing to add to those facts except some abstracts to be outlined below. The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, hereinafter referred to as the KV Sangathan, vide Advt. No. F. 2-1/95 KVs (RPII) published in the Employment News dated 18 to 24 February , 1995 invited applications for recruitment to the post of Principals of Kendriya Vidyalayas for the following vacancies: SC -14, OBC - 25, General - 46. The candidates were asked to make their applications as per the proforma annexed to the advertisement. Entries Nos. 10,11,12 and 13 of the aforesaid proforma which would be relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the matter, are cited hereinbelow for ready reference : "10. Give particulars of all examinations passed and degrees/diplomas/certificates obtained at the University or other places of higher professional education (commencing with plus two or equivalent examination (See Instruction 3) A. Academic qualifications (Attach copies of certificates and mark-sheets) Examination Percen- Subjects Medium Year Board/ Tage of offered of exa- Univer- Marks mination sities (a) Plus two Higher Secondary Prep/PUC Intermediate (b) Graduate Degree BA/BSC B.Com other (please specify) (c) Post-Grad- uate degree/ MA/MSc/MCom/ other (please specify) (d) Additional post-graduate/degree MA/MSc/Mcom/ MPhil/Other (please specify) (e) PhD (other than that in Education) (f) (g) B. Professional Qualifications (Attach copies of certificates and mark-sheets) Examination Duration Percentage Div. Year Name of of the Instt/ University /Board (a) BT/LT/BEd (b) MEd (c) PhD. 11. Teaching experience in chronological order including present appointment (See Instruction 4) Name of Post Period of Classes Scale Payactu- Instt. held Service and sub- of ally at the (indicate From To No. of jects pay end of whether it comp- taught tenure is recog- leted nised or months not of ser- vice (1) (2) (3) 12. experience in educational administration as distinct from teaching experience: (Sec Instruction 5) Name of Post Period of Scale Actual Instt./ held Service of pay Organiz- From To No. of pay drawn ation/ comp- Pay DA Depart- leted Rs. ment months of ser- vice (1) (2) (3) 13. House Master in Public School/Sainik School: Name of the Whether the Whether officially Period of Public School/ instt. is recog- appointed as House Mast-Sainik School nisedbyMin. House Master? ership of Defence If so, details From to HRD. If so thereof Total months reference thereof (1) (2) 20. ment months of ser- vice (1) (2) (3) 13. House Master in Public School/Sainik School: Name of the Whether the Whether officially Period of Public School/ instt. is recog- appointed as House Mast-Sainik School nisedbyMin. House Master? ership of Defence If so, details From to HRD. If so thereof Total months reference thereof (1) (2) 20. BY notice bearing No. F. 1-1/95-KVS (RP-II) dated 15th June, 1995 the appellant / writ petitioner was advised to appear for an interview at the place, date (22.6.95) and time as indicated in the notice. The appellant/petitioner, in terms of the notice, appeared in the said interview and vide memo No. F. 7.2 /95-KVS (Estt. 2) dated 21.7.95, the appellant / petitioner was informed that with reference to his application dated 22.3.95 for the post of Principal, he had been selected for appointment against a temporary post of Principal in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan accordingly, the appellant/petitioner joined the said post and worked as such till the impugned order dated 23/29.12.97, was passed by the Commissioner of the KV Sangathan, whereby the appointment of the appellant/petitioner to the post of Principal vide memo No.F.7.2/95-KVS (Estt.2) dated 21.7.95, was cancelled. As indicated in the judgment of the learned Chief Justice, it may also be mentioned that the respondent No. 2, the KV Sangathan, held a Departmental Examination for the Principals, Vice-Principals and eligible Post-Graduate teachers in December, 1994. The appellant/petitioner also appeared in the aforementioned Departmental Examination and the list of successful candidates of the Departmental Examination held in December, 1994 was published and announced by the respondent No.2/KV Sangathan vide memo No. F. 12.1/94-KVS (Trg) DE dated 22.8.95. and in the said list of successful candidates of the Departmental Examination held in December, 1994 the name of the appellant/petitioner also surfaced. Admittedly, the result of the Departmental Examination was published after the selection and appointment of Principals. There is also no dispute as to the fact that in the proforma of application for the posts of Principal, at entry No. 12, the petitioner/ appellant truely and fully disclosed the fact that he was awaiting the result of the Departmental Examination held in December, 1994. There is also no dispute as to the fact that in the proforma of application for the posts of Principal, at entry No. 12, the petitioner/ appellant truely and fully disclosed the fact that he was awaiting the result of the Departmental Examination held in December, 1994. The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 4.9.1998, passed in Civil Rule No. 112/1998, held that since the appellant/ petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications as on the date of making the application, he was not entitled for consideration for appointment/ recruitment. Subsequent attainment/gaining of qualification would be of no consequence and for that purpose, the learned Single Judge relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar vs Chander Shekhar and others reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18 , State of Haryana and ors. Anurag Srivastava and another, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 399 ; and in Rekha Chaturvedi-vs.-University of Rajas than & others, reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168. The Supreme Court in all the aforesaid decisions held that the qualification which have to be considered are those as possessed on the last date of filing of the application. Qualification and experience are two different concepts. Experience in Educational Administration does not have any bearing with the academic qualification. The word "Qualification" conveys the meaning of accomplishment which fits a person for some function, office or the like. Qualifying means distinctive quality, that which qualifies, a quality that fits a person for a task, etc., a necessary condition and accomplishment. The word "Experience" connotes test, trial or experience - the act of practical acquaintance with any matter gained by trial; long and varied observation, personal or general, adjective experienced - taught by experience; a personal, instance of personally encountering or undergoing something. It also means knowledge or practical wisdom gained from what one has observed, encountered. A person acquiring prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered. But same principal is not applicable in the case of gaining of experience. As alluded earlier, experience in Educational administration has no nexus with the qualification. The Educational qualification has a direct nexus with the post. The respondents who conducted the Departmental Examination and was entrusted with the responsibility of declaring the result of such examination, cannot/could not ignore their own non-performance and remisses in procrastination or holding-up of result of the Departmental Examination. The Educational qualification has a direct nexus with the post. The respondents who conducted the Departmental Examination and was entrusted with the responsibility of declaring the result of such examination, cannot/could not ignore their own non-performance and remisses in procrastination or holding-up of result of the Departmental Examination. The appellant/petitioner appeared in the Departmental Examination conducted by the respondents in December, 1994. The Advertisement was made in February, 1995. i.e., two months after the Departmental Examination, inviting applications for the posts within forty-five days from the date of advertisement. It is/ was not unnatural for those who possessed the educational qualifications to apply and appear at the Departmental Examination held in December, 1994 . 21. The duty and obligation of holding the Departmental Examination as well as declaring the result within a reasonable time, was entrusted with the respondents, who also advertised the posts. The appellant had no hand in the declaration of the result, nor could he be made responsible for delaying the result. "Lex Non cogit ad imposibilia" - Law does not compel the impossible. The appellant passed the Departmental Examination, therefore, to disregard the result of the Departmental Examination would work injustice., more so, when this impossibility was not self induced. As mentioned earlier, there was no deficiency in the educational qualification of the appellant. It has also not seemingly affected the rights of any of the candidates. One should not/cannot take advantage of one's own wrong, - "Nullus Commodum Capere potest de injuria sua propria". No one should be allowed to profit from his own wrong. It was the respondents who were responsible for holding- up of the result of the Departmental Examination and not the appellant/petitioner. "Ex Turpi causa Non oriture actio" a cause of action cannot be based on wrong doing. The Courts have evolved the technique of construction in "bonarm pertem". One of the legal principles employed on construction in bonarm pertem is that no one should be allowed to profit from its own wrong. The respondents authorities were made aware of the fact by the appellant petitioner that he had appeared in the Departmental Examination held in December, 1994 and was waiting for the result. One of the legal principles employed on construction in bonarm pertem is that no one should be allowed to profit from its own wrong. The respondents authorities were made aware of the fact by the appellant petitioner that he had appeared in the Departmental Examination held in December, 1994 and was waiting for the result. Knowing it well, the respondents called upon him for the selection and found him eligible as a matter of fact; the appellant/petitioner also qualified himself in the Departmental Examination held in December, 1994 by the respondents and the result of the said Departmental Examination was announced by the respondents/authorities on 221 23.8.1995. On 21.3.1997, the date on which the show Cause Notice was issued upon the appellant/petition vide No. F. 6-9/95-KVS (Estt.-II) dt. 21.3.97, the result of the Departmental Examination held in December, 1994 was already declared . The appellant/petitioner was a candidate who had passed the Departmental Examination before 21.3.1997, therefore, the appellant could not have been said to be a person who did not possess the qualifications as was/were alleged in the show Cause Notice. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner/appellant possessed the essential academic qualifications prior to 10.4.1995 i.e. the last date for receipt of the application. He was at best lacking only in relation to Administrative Experience for non-declaration of the result of the Departmental Examination, and after declaration of the result of the Departmental Examination on 22nd/23rd August, 1995 the same stood cured. The experience of Educational Administration does not in any manner have any bearing with the qualification. Under no circumstances, experience can be equated with educational qualifications required to be possessed by a candidate for the post. 22. In the case of Rekha Chaturvedi (supra), the Supreme Court was concerned with appointment of six persons from General category as Asstt. Professors (Lecturers) in the Department of History in the University of Rajasthan. The minimum qualifications for appointment to the posts was laid down by an ordinance of the University. The University authority also while inviting applications for the aforementioned posts mentioned the prescribed qualifications as necessary for being eligible to the post. Professors (Lecturers) in the Department of History in the University of Rajasthan. The minimum qualifications for appointment to the posts was laid down by an ordinance of the University. The University authority also while inviting applications for the aforementioned posts mentioned the prescribed qualifications as necessary for being eligible to the post. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court found that except respondent No. 10, the other selected candidates lacked the minimum required qualification of possessing a Doctorate Degree as on the last date of submission of the application, though these persons obtained Doctorate Degrees at the time of selection. The Court held that the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications would be the last date for making the application. In the light of its earlier decisions inAndhra Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. B. Sarat Chandra, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 669 , and that Welfare Residential School Society vs. M. Tripura Sundri Devi, reported in (1990)3 SCC 655 , the Supreme Court found that when the Selection Committee took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent illegality, and on that ground alone, the selections in question were liable to be quashed. However, in view of elapse of a period of eight years, the Court did not interfere in the matter. The Court also took note of the fact about the absence of the records as to how the Selection Committee had proceeded to weigh the respective merits of the candidates and as to how it relaxed the minimum qualifications in favour of some candidates in exercise of discretionary powers. Though the Court in the aforementioned case, did not interfere in the selection, it laid down a set of guidelines for future selection process. 23. In Ashok Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court was concerned with a review application in respect of appointment to the posts of Junior Engineer in the service of Jammu & Kashmir State in pursuance to an Advertisement dated 9.1.1982. The last date for submitting application for the aforesaid posts was specifically stated as 15.7.82. A pass in B.E. (Civil) examination was the minimum academic/ technical qualification required for the said posts. A number of persons applied pursuant to the advertisement. Out of them, thirty-three persons had not passed the B.E. (Civil) examination on or before 15.7.82. The last date for submitting application for the aforesaid posts was specifically stated as 15.7.82. A pass in B.E. (Civil) examination was the minimum academic/ technical qualification required for the said posts. A number of persons applied pursuant to the advertisement. Out of them, thirty-three persons had not passed the B.E. (Civil) examination on or before 15.7.82. They had appeared in the said examination earlier to the said date, but the results were published only on 21.8.1982. Though the aforesaid persons did not possess the prescribed qualifications as on the specified date, they were interviewed and were selected along with other candidates. The interview was held on various dates commencing from 24.8.82. Some of the candidates who were selected but placed below the aforesaid respondents preferred a writ petition challenging the selection of those thirty-three persons. In the above decision, the Supreme Court held that- "A person who acquired the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for application constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it." The aforementioned view was also reiterated in the case of Anurag Srivastava & another (supra). In Anurag Srivastava (supra) also, the Supreme Court was concerned with the educational qualification and not with the experience. One of the reasons behind the above legal policy is that if the other similarly placed persons would have been aware that persons who would obtain the qualification/Degree after the prescribed date would also be allowed to appear at the interview or selection, such other similarly placed persons would also have applied for the posts-in-question. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding the fact that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis. This proposition of law is applicable to the cases of academic qualifications only. But herein the case, we are not concerned with academic qualifications, neither with any professional; we are basically concerned with experience in Educational Administration as cited in entry No. 12 in the proforma for application. The appellant/petitioner rendered service for more than ten years as mentioned in clause (f) of the Advertisement under the heading "Experience in Educational Administration is defined as under:". The appellant/petitioner rendered service for more than ten years as mentioned in clause (f) of the Advertisement under the heading "Experience in Educational Administration is defined as under:". As per the advertisement, experience in Educational Administration for a Vice-Principal and/ or Post Graduate Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya is ten years at the minimum for those who have passed the Departmental Examination. 24. Experience and educational qualification are two distinct and well defined concepts. Qualifications will depend and/or differ with the nature of the post or the services to be rendered by the incumbent. The qualification has direct bearing with the nature of the post and the appellant acquired his qualification long before the required date. In the facts and circumstances, the impugned order holding that the appellant "did not possess the required essential qualification as defined in the advertisement..." cannot be sustained. In reaching to the aforementioned conclusion, I took the aid of and was also benefited by the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Gupta vs. Munucipal Corporation of Delhi, reported in (2000)1 SCC128. AK. Raghunath Singh and others vs. Gopal ChandraNath & others, reported in (2000) 4 SCC 30 , and in State ofMadhya Pradesh vs. Dharambir, reported in (1998)6 SCC 165 . 25. The impugned order dated 23/29-12-1997 (Annexure IX to the writ petitiofc) cancelling the selection and appointment of the petitioner to the post of Principal on the Purported ground of "non fulfilment of the essential qualification of three years experience in education administration as provided in clause (iii) under the heading "Essential Qualifications of the advertisement", cannot be sustained on the face of attainment of the aforementioned essential qualification after the announcement of the result of the departmental examination. At the worst, the initial appointment of the petitioner could only be labelled as irregular. Breach of clause (iii) under the heading "Essential qualification" as mentioned in the advertisement did not render the appointment of the appellant/petitioner void. On his passing of the Departmental Examination, the appointment of the petitioner became regular. Once his appointment ripened into "regular", he could not thereafter be terminated nor his appointment could be cancelled. Breach of clause (iii) under the heading "Essential qualification" as mentioned in the advertisement did not render the appointment of the appellant/petitioner void. On his passing of the Departmental Examination, the appointment of the petitioner became regular. Once his appointment ripened into "regular", he could not thereafter be terminated nor his appointment could be cancelled. The ratio of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in Ram Samp vs. State" ofHaryana andothers, reported in (1979)1 SCC 168 : JC Yadav and others vs. State ofHaryana and others reported in (1990)2 SCC 189 : and in Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. & ors., reported in (1996) 2 SCC 45 is apposite for adjudicating the issue at hand in the present case. 26. The case in Ram Sarup (supra) pertains to the appointment and subsequent reversion of a person holding the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation officer. Under the recruitment rules, no person can be appointed as Labour Cum-Conciliation Officer unless he possessed the educational and other qualifications mentioned in the relevant clause. The appellant fulfilled the requirements of academic qualifications, but admittedly, he did not have the five years, experience in the field of labour laws as Labour Inspector or Deputy Chief Inspector of shops or wage Inspector. His experience in working of Labour laws was limited only to a period of about ten months and, therefore, he did not satisfy the requirements of five years, experience when he was appointed to the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation officer. The Supreme Court in the above case held that the appointment of the appellant to the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation officer was, therefore, cleai ly in breach of the Rule 4( 1) of the recruitment rules. The Supreme Court, however, held that the impugned order of reversion was illegal in view of his fulfilment of the qualifications, that he subsequently gained. Accordingly, the Supreme Court made the following observation in paragraph 3 of its decision in the above case: "3. The question then arises as to what was the effect of breach of clause (1) of Rule 4 of the Rules. Did it have the effect of rendering the appointment wholly void so as to be completely ineffective or merely irregular, so, that it could be regularised as and when the appellant acquired the necessary qualifications to hold the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer. Did it have the effect of rendering the appointment wholly void so as to be completely ineffective or merely irregular, so, that it could be regularised as and when the appellant acquired the necessary qualifications to hold the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer. We are of the view that the appointment of the appellant was irregular since he did not possess one of the three requisite qualifications but as soon as he acquired the necessary qualification of five years' experience of the working of Labour Laws in any one of the three capacities mentioned in Clause(l) of Rule 4 or in any higher capacity, his appointment must be regarded as having been regularised. The appellant worked as Labour-cum-Conciliation officer from January 1, 1968 and that being a post higher than that of Labour Inspector, or Deputy Chief Inspector of Shops or wage Inspector, the experience gained by him in the working of Labour Laws in the post of Labour -cum-Conciliation officer must be regarded as sufficient to constitute fulfilment of the requirement of five years' experience provided in clause (1) of Rule 4. The appointment of the appellant to the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, therefore, became regular from the date when he completed five years after taking into account the period of about ten months during which he worked as Chief Inspector of Shops. Once his appointment became regular on the expiry of this period of five years on his fulfilling the requirements for appointment as Labour-cum-Conciliation officer and becoming eligible for that purpose, he could not thereafter be reverted to the post of Statistical officer. The order of reversion passed against the appellant, was therefore, clearly illegal and it must be set aside." The aforementioned decision was relied upon in the case of J.C. Yadav (supra) and it was held by the Supreme Court that since the appellants already completed eight years, service in Class II Service during the pendency of the writ petition, their appointment, even if irregular, stood regularised on the date they completed eight years of service and, therefore, their promotions could not be set aside. It may also be stated herein that the Supreme Court made a distinction between academic qualifications and experience, as will appear from the decision in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra). It may also be stated herein that the Supreme Court made a distinction between academic qualifications and experience, as will appear from the decision in Santosh Kumar Singh (supra). In the aforementioned decision, legality of the appointment of the appellant Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, as Lecturer in the subject of Agronomy, was the subject-matter. Admittedly, the appellant Santosh Kumar Singh did not fulfil the minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of Lecturer as required under the University Statute. Ram Sarup (supra) was sought to be relied upon on behalf of the appellant. Rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court observed that the appointment in the aforesaid case had been made even though the appointee did not have the minimum experience of five years, but undoubtedly, he had the minimum educational qualifications for the post and, therefore, the Court had observed that the appointment would be valid from the date when the appointee acquired the minimum period of experience required under the university rules. 27. There cannot also be any misgiving as to the breach of the "equal protection" clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The doctrine of equality is a dynamic and evolving concept having many facets in its stride. The object and intent of the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 read with the Directive Principles of State policy, is to attain justice social-economic and political, liberty, equality of Status and opportunity-as indicated in the Preamble reflecting the aspirations of "We the people of India". The equality of opportunity guaranteed in Article 16(1) of the Constitution need not be absolute equality, - it has many facts. There cannot be any mathematical precision. It all depends on the facts situations. Equality guaranteed in Article 16(1) is only equality between the members of the same class. Discrimination or for that matter, breach of the equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, cannot be read in the vacuity. In this case, there is no scope to read any alleged discrimination. The action of the respondents in the case in hand did not affect the right to make applications by the Departmental candidates who had completed ten years of minimum service and had appeared in the Departmental Examination. No prohibition as such was made in the advertisement. Cancellation of such appointment would, therefore, amount to doubtful penalisation. 28. The action of the respondents in the case in hand did not affect the right to make applications by the Departmental candidates who had completed ten years of minimum service and had appeared in the Departmental Examination. No prohibition as such was made in the advertisement. Cancellation of such appointment would, therefore, amount to doubtful penalisation. 28. For the discussions and reasons as stated above, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4.9.1998, passed in Civil Rule No. 1127 98, is set aside. Consequently, the impugned order bearing No. F. 6-89/95-KVS/Estt. II dated 23/29-12-97, passed by the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18 Institutional Area, Sheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-16 (Annexure-IX to the writ petition), is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. J. N. SARMA, J. - 29. This matter has been placed before me as per the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, as because there was difference of opinion between the Learned Judges. By Judgment dated 11.9.2000 the Hon'ble the Chief Justice (Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar) dismissed the writ appeal and affirmed the Judgment of Learned Single judge but Hon'ble Justice DN Chowdhury by the judgment of same date deferred with Hon'ble the Chief justice and allowed the appeal and quashed the judgment of learned Single judge. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 30. On 24.2.95 an advertisement was issued by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan for the post of Principal and the essential qualification for the said post was as follows : "Essential qualifications: (i) Atleast Second Class Master's Degree (45% marks and above considered as equivalent) in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Zoology, Botany, English, Hindi, Sanskrit, History, Geography, Commerce or Economics. (ii) A Degree or post Graduate Degree/Diploma in teaching /Education. (iii) Atleast 10 years experience including minimum 7 years teaching experience in Senior Secondary or Higher Levels in recognised Institutions and minimum of 3 years experience in educational administration. Experience in educational administration is defined as under: (a) As Principal/ Headmaster of a High School/Hr. (ii) A Degree or post Graduate Degree/Diploma in teaching /Education. (iii) Atleast 10 years experience including minimum 7 years teaching experience in Senior Secondary or Higher Levels in recognised Institutions and minimum of 3 years experience in educational administration. Experience in educational administration is defined as under: (a) As Principal/ Headmaster of a High School/Hr. Secondary School/Inter College/Degree College, or As vice principal of Higher Secondary School/Inter College/Degree college or Head of Department in a Degree College/ University Teachers Training College, or (c) House Master in Public/Sainik School or as officer in Army Education Corps, or (d) As a Vice-Principal in a Kendriya Vidyalaya for 3 years or more, or (e) As Vice-Principal and/or as PGT in Kendriya Vidyalaya for at least 15 years, or (f) As Vice-Principal and/or as PGT in Kendriya Vidyalaya for atleast 10 years in case of those who have passed the Departmental Examination. Desirable: (i) Working knowledge of Hindi and English, (ii) Experience in organising Games & Sports and Co-curricular activities. Relaxation for SC/ST candidates : In case sufficient number of SC/ST candidates are not for coming to fill up vacancies, the competent authority can consider relaxing administrative experience to the following extent: Five years educational experience including 3 years teaching experience at Senior Secondary or Higher Levels in recognised institutions and 2 years experience in educational administrative. In case of existing PGTs and Vice-Principals in KVS belonging to SC/ST communities, who have completed 10 years of service as PGT and/or Vice-Principal as on 31.12.94, the required administrative experience will be relaxed altogether. Departmental examination: All selected candidates will have to pass the Departmental Examination in Administrative and Academic matters and Financial Rules within 3 years from the date of their joining as Principal. In case they fail to pass the said examination within 3 years they will not be conformed in the post till they qualify in the said examination. Selected candidates may also be required to undergo a training course before actual appointment/ posting. Probation : Selected candidates will be placed on probation for two years which is extendable by one year, if necessary." 31. It is seen from the advertisement that in the case of SC and ST communities, who have completed 10 years of service as PGT and or Vice-Principal as on 31.12.94, the required administrative experience will be relaxed altogether. Probation : Selected candidates will be placed on probation for two years which is extendable by one year, if necessary." 31. It is seen from the advertisement that in the case of SC and ST communities, who have completed 10 years of service as PGT and or Vice-Principal as on 31.12.94, the required administrative experience will be relaxed altogether. It may be stated herein that on 13th October, 1994 a notification was issued by the Govt. of India wherein it was stated that relaxation of standards may be provided to OBC candidates as in the case of SC and ST candidates. The admitted position in this case is that it was before the issuance of the advertisement as quoted above. So, benefit of this notification shall also be available to OBC candidates and admitted position is that the writ petitioner was an OBC candidate and this relaxation shall only apply to OBC quota. The writ petitioner herein joined at primary level and on 21.7,80 he was appointed as P.G.T. and thereafter on 19.1.89 he was appointed as PGT. The last date for filing the application was 10.4.95 so he will have experience as PGT for a period of more than 11 years two months. The writ petitioner applied for the post in terms of the advertisement quoted above and selection was held on 22.6 .95 and the writ petitioner was selected and he was appointed on 21.7.95. Thereafter a show-cause was issued on 21.3.97 i.e., after 2 years, to terminate the service of the petitioner on the ground that as and when he was appointed in the year 1995 he did not have the requisite qualification to apply for the post and as a matter of fact, a show cause also was issued to the Chairman of the Selection Committee to state as to why the writ petitioner was selected though he did not have the requisite qualification. The Chairman of the Selection Committee specifically replied that he gave the benefit of 1994 Circular which has been referred above to the writ petitioner in order to fill up the quota available for OBC candidates and he further stated that it was not a individual decision but a collective decision of the Members of the Selection Committee. Be that as it may, after filing of the show-cause the authority vide memorandum dated 23.12.97 passed the following order : "7. Be that as it may, after filing of the show-cause the authority vide memorandum dated 23.12.97 passed the following order : "7. Whereas, after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case vis-a-vis, the show-cause notice issued to Shri Krishnamoorthy and the reply dated 23.4.97 submitted by him and the submissions made during the personal hearing, the undersigned has come to the conclusion that the appointment of Shri Krishnamoorthy to the post of Principal is ab-initio void as he did not possess the required essential qualification as defined in the advertisement and as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules for the post, as on 10.4.95 the last date of receipt of applications for the purpose. (8). And, now, therefore, the under signed being the competent authority, hereby orders that the appointment of Shri. Krishnamoorthy to the post of Principal as issued vide memoradumNo. F. /-2/95- KVS (Estt.II) dated 21.7.95 is hereby cancelled." 32. Thereafter, as against the impugned/ order quoted above a writ petition being Civil Rule No. 112/98 was filed challenging that order and writ petition was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge by judgment dated 4.9.98 and as against that a writ appeal was filed wherein two judgments as indicated above have been passed. 33. I have heard Mr. B.K. Sharma, Learned Advocate for the writ petitioner/ appellant and Mr. H. Roy, Learned Advocate for the respondents. Mr. Sharma, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner/appellant contends as follows : i) The benefit of relaxation as was admissible to SC/ST candidates was also made available to OBC candidates by the circular of 1994 and that was taken into consideration by the Members of the Selection Committee as stated in the addl. affidavit-in-opposition. ii) That the petitioner has a P.G.T./ Lecturer) experience having worked as principal and vice principal and he also had the requisite administrative experience of three years. iii) There was no suppression of material facts on his part as he declared the factum that he is appearing in the departmental examination in the application form itself. The examination was held on December, 1994 and the result^ were declared on 23.8.95 after a long delay of 8 months and the writ petitioner cannot be suffer for such delay. iii) There was no suppression of material facts on his part as he declared the factum that he is appearing in the departmental examination in the application form itself. The examination was held on December, 1994 and the result^ were declared on 23.8.95 after a long delay of 8 months and the writ petitioner cannot be suffer for such delay. Along with the other four persons who appeared in the examination the writ petitioner only was successful and the writ petitioner can not be made to suffer for the delay caused by the authority i.e., by the department in declaring result. iv) That the educational qualification and experience are two distinct and different factors and it has to be taken into consideration in deciding the legality and validity of selection. v) Even if the writ petitioner is lacking in the experience, he cleared the departmental examination and he also acquired the experience. So his appointment as principal can not be quashed. vi) In equity also the writ petitioner deserves consideration inasmuch as the authority caused delay in issuing the show cause for a period of two years and in the meantime for the year 1996 and 1997 he lost two chances to get selection. vii) Now the authority themselves have done away with the experience of three years and now the experience is as follows: "Persons holding group 'B' posts or the posts of PGTs or Lecturer in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 or equivalent with atleast 10 years' regular service in the aforesaid grade." 34. On the other hand Mr. H. Roy joins issue with Mr. Sharma and submits that the petitioner did not have the essential qualification at the time of application, at the time of interview and even at the time of appointment and as such selection and appointment is void ab-initio. Before we proceed further let us have a look what is the meaning of the word qualification. In Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary Unabridged Second Edition the meaning of the word qualification is as follows: "Qualification, n. (Fr., from L. Qualificare, to qualify.) 1. The act of qualifying or the state of being qualified. 2. Any quality, knowledge, ability, experience or acquirement that fits a person for a position, office, profession, etc.; a requisite. 3. A condition that must be met in order to exercise certain rights." 35. The act of qualifying or the state of being qualified. 2. Any quality, knowledge, ability, experience or acquirement that fits a person for a position, office, profession, etc.; a requisite. 3. A condition that must be met in order to exercise certain rights." 35. But the question is whether their can be some distinction between the experience as a qualification and the academic distinction as a qualification. Mr. Sharma, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner in order to bring home this aspect of the matter relies on the following decisions: i) 1979(1) SCC page 168 (Ram Sarup-Vs-State ofHaryana and others.). That was a case where a person was appointed initially as a Statistical Officer and thereafter he was appointed to the post of Chief Inspector of Shops and thereafter he was transferred to the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer as the Govt. decided that these posts are interchangeable but the statutory rule was not amended and thereafter when the Govt. realised this position the Govt. reverted him to the post of Statistical Officer. The ground on which the order of reversion was passed was that the appellant was not qualified to be appointed as Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer under the Punjab Labour Service (Class I and II) of Rules, 1955 because he did not possess one of the minimum qualification required under the Rule 4, Clause(I), namely that he should have experience of atleast five years in the working of Labour Laws as Labour Inspector, etc. The appellant challenged the order of reversion by filing a petition in the High Court. The petition was dismissed by the Single Judge. There was an appeal before the Division Bench but the appeal was also dismissed in limine. Thereafter, the appeal was filed before the Apex Court. The Supreme Court found that he had the experience only for a period of 10 months and he did not satisfy the requirement of 5 years experience. On this background the question which arose before the Supreme Court was what was the effect of breach of clause-I of the Rule 4 of the Rules. Did it have the effect or rendering the appointment wholly void so as to be completely ineffective or merely irregular, so that it could be regularised as and when the appellant acquired necessary qualification to hold the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer. Did it have the effect or rendering the appointment wholly void so as to be completely ineffective or merely irregular, so that it could be regularised as and when the appellant acquired necessary qualification to hold the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer. The Supreme Court on this background pointed out as follows: (a) "We are of the view that the appointment of the appellant was irregular since he didn't possession of the three requisite qualifications but as soon as he acquired the necessary qualification of five years experience of the working of Labour Laws in any one of the three capacities mentioned in Clause (I) of Rule 4 or in any Higher capacity, his appointment must be regarded as having been regularised" (b) "Once his appointment became regular on the expiry of this period of five years on his fulfilling the requirements for appointment as Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer and becoming eligible for that purpose, he could not thereafter be reverted to the post of statistical officer. The order of reversion passed against the appellant was, therefore, clearly illegal and it must be set aside." The writ petitioner herein also was appointed on 21.7.95 and on 23.8.95 he passed the departmental examination in lieu of the experience and before the termination order was passed on 29.12.97 he had the experience of 2 years 5 months and added to it the earlier one year. He served as a Principal and top of it he passed the departmental examination. So, in view of the Supreme Court decision cited above the writ petitioner is entitled to the benefit of regularisation and appointment could not have been cancelled. ii) 1990 (2) SCCpage 189 (J.C. Yadav and others-Versus- State of Haryana and others ). That was a case where the respondent before the Supreme Court challenged the validity of the appellant's promotion on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification for promotion to Class-I service, and their promotions were contrary to Rules and in paragraph 12 the law has been laid by the Supreme Court as follows: "On behalf of the appellants an alternative submission was made that since the appellants had already completed eight years' of service in Class-II service during the pendency of the writ petition their appointment stood regularised. To support this submission reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Ram Sarup V. State of Haryana. To support this submission reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Ram Sarup V. State of Haryana. In that case appointment to the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer was made in breach of Rule 4 Clause (I) of the Punjab Labour Service Class-I and II Rules, 1955 as Ram Sarup did not possess five years experience, required by sub-clause (I) of Rule 4. In spite of that he had been appointed to the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation officer. Subsequently, Ram Sarup was reverted on the ground that he was not qualified to be appointed as a Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer as he did not possess the minimum qualification of length of service. This Court held that the appointment of Ram . Sarup made in breach of Rules was irregular, but not wholly void and since Ram Sarup had completely five years of experience of working of labour laws before his reversion, his appointment to the post of Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer stood regularised with effect from the date he completed five years of service. On these findings order of reversion was set aside by this court. Undisputably, the appellants completed eight years of service before January 15,1980, the date on which the Division Bench of the High Court set aside their promotions. In view of the principles laid down in Ram Sarup case the appellants' appointment, even if irregular, stood regularised on the date they completed eight years of their service and thereafter their promotions could not be set aside." Same is the situation in the case in hand. iii) 2001 (3) SCC page 328 ( Buddhi Nath Choudhury and others- Versus-Abahi Kumar and others). In that case the Supreme Court pointed out as the person working in such post for long time necessarily they acquire the requisite experience. The lack of experience if any at the time of recruitment is made good now. In that view of the matter the Supreme Court quashed the order of the High Court to make a new exercise as that would lead to an anomalous situation and the Supreme Court disposed of the matter on equitable consideration and reliance was placed in the earlier two cases cited above. iv) 2000(4) SCC page 30 (A. K. Raghumani Singh and others -Versus-Gopal Chandra Nath and others). That also was a case where the eligibility criteria required was educational qualification with six years regular service. iv) 2000(4) SCC page 30 (A. K. Raghumani Singh and others -Versus-Gopal Chandra Nath and others). That also was a case where the eligibility criteria required was educational qualification with six years regular service. The Division Bench of this court pointed out that the experience which was gathered subsequently also may be taken into consideration and the appeal preferred before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. v) 1998 (8) SCC page 59 (Roshni Devi and others-Versus-State ofHaryana and others). That was a case where it was found by the Apex Court that the recruitment process through which the appointments were made were invalid but keeping in view that the persons concerned had rendered more than 9 years' service equity was invoked and their appointments were saved. That principle of equity is also applicable in the present case as it will be sheer injustice to throw out the writ petitioner from the service as on the date of the hearing of the writ application and earlier to it also the writ petitioner had the qualification. vi) 1993 (3) SCC page 591 (Dr. M.S. Mudhol and another -Versus-S.D. Halegkar and others). That was a case of the principal of the higher secondary School and the qualification was Master's degree with at least second division plus a degree in teaching required under statutory rules. The person had a M.A. degree with 3rd division and M.Ed degree with 2nd division. It was found by the Supreme Court that the respondent was not qualified to the post of principal as it was found by the Supreme Court that M.Ed degree is not equivalent to M.A. degree as the person served for a period of 9 years by applying the principle of equity his appointment was saved. In paragraph 6 it has been pointed out as follows : "Since we find that it was the default on the part of the 2nd respondent, Director of Education in illegally approving the appointments of the first respondent in 1981 although he did not have the requisite academic qualifications as a result of which the 1st respondent has continued to hold the said post for the last 12 years now, it would be inadvisable to disturb him from the said post at this late stage particularly when he was not at fault when his selection was made. There is nothing on record to show that he had at that time projected his qualifications other than what he possessed. If, therefore, in spite of placing all his cards before the Selection Committee, the Selection Committee for some reason or the other had thought it fit to choose him for the post and the 2nd respondent had chosen to acquiesce in the appointment, it would be iniquitous to make him suffer for the same now, Illegality, if any, was committed by the selection committee and the 2nd respondent. They are alone to be blamed for the same." 36. It was further found by the Supreme Court in paragraph 5 that at least on the date when his removal from the post of Principal is sought it cannot be done for disqualified or the lack of required experience. That is what has happened in the instant case also. There is another aspect of the matter which must be borne in mind as indicated above that the writ petitioner belongs to OBC and he will have the benefit of the circular as mentioned above and if that benefit is also given as was done by the Selection Committee the writ petitioner shall have the qualification to be selected and that is what was done by the Selection Committee. From all these facts I hold that the writ petitioner had the essential qualification and the order of his cancellation of appointment is not proper and justified. 37. On the other hand, Mr. H. Roy, learned Advocate for the respondents places reliance on the following decisions: i) 1997(4) SCC page 18 (Ashok Kumar Sharma and others - Vs- Chander Shekhar and another). That was a case where an advertisement was published inviting applications for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer in the service of the Jammu & Kashmir State. The last date for submitting applications was specifically stated as 15.7.1982. The qualification prescribed was B.E. (Civil). Thirty three persons who applied for the post did not pass the B.E. examination on or before 15.7.1982. The results were published only on 21.8.82. Interviews were held on various dates commencing from 24.8.82. Though these 33 persons (respondents) were not qualified as on the specified date, they were yet interviewed pursuant to certain instructions given by the Government. They were selected along with s.ome other candidates. Certain candidates were qualified but no selected. The results were published only on 21.8.82. Interviews were held on various dates commencing from 24.8.82. Though these 33 persons (respondents) were not qualified as on the specified date, they were yet interviewed pursuant to certain instructions given by the Government. They were selected along with s.ome other candidates. Certain candidates were qualified but no selected. The Supreme Court pointed out that as they did not have the qualification their application ought to have been rejected at the initial stage itself. This case is no help to the respondents in as much as indicated above this is a case with regard to the academic qualification and as indicated above certain distinction have been made by the Supreme Court with regard to the academic qualification and experience as qualification. ii) 1998(8) SCC 399 (State ofHaryana and others- Versus- Anurag Srivastava and another). That was a case with regard to the educational qualification. There was an advertisement for the post of Assistant Archivist prescribing educational qualification as "Master's degree or equivalent Honours degree in Modern Indian History with an optional paper etc. The Supreme Court found that the respondents was not entitled to be considered as he did not possess the Master's degree in Modern Indian History on the last date of submission of an application. So, she was not eligible for appointment though she acquired prescribed qualification after interview and selection. That is not the position in the case in hand. So, this case is also no help to the respondents. iii) 1996 (10) SCC page 749 (Pramod Lalludas Meshram -Vs-State of Maharashtra and others). That was a case with some bizare facts. Three posts were advertised, two were reserved for Backward Classes and one was for general candidates. The writ petitioner claiming to the SC candidate received letter of appointment. It was later on found that the letter by which their names were recommended for appointment were unauthorised and as such appointments were cancelled. A writ application was filed, that was dismissed. Hence, appeal was filed. It was found by the Supreme Court that the selection itself was not a regular one and the Supreme Court directed the State Govt. the matter be referred to the CBI. This case is also of no help to the respondents. iv) 1990 (3) SCC page 655 ( District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Resident School Society-Versus-M. Tripura Sundari Devi). the matter be referred to the CBI. This case is also of no help to the respondents. iv) 1990 (3) SCC page 655 ( District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Resident School Society-Versus-M. Tripura Sundari Devi). That was a case where it was found that the respondent was selected though he was not qualified. That was for appointment to the post of teacher's in Gr.I and Gr. II. The qualification prescribed was 2nd Class degree in M. A. but the respondent had 3rd class degree in M.A. This was later on found out and accordingly appointment was cancelled and even she was not allowed to join the service. As indicated above that also is a case writ regard to the educational qualification and is of no help to the respondents. v) 7995 (1) SCC 138 (Ravinder Sharma (Smti ) and another - Versus- State of Punjab and others). That was a case for appointment as a clerk. The qualification prescribed under the Rule was Matriculation first division but the respondent had the qualification of Matriculation 3rd class/division and accordingly her appointment was cancelled. This also was a case with regard to the educational qualification and is/no help to the respondents. vi) AIR 1991 SCpage 173 3( Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others-Versus-Dr. Sushil V. Patkar and others). That also was a case with regard to the educational qualification. The educational qualification prescribed was M.Ch. qualification. The respondent did not possess that qualification on the date of the application. He acquired that qualification at a subsequent point of time and as such the Supreme Court pointed out that his candidature on that date should have been rejected. This case is also no help to the respondent. vii) 7993 (Suppl) (3) SCC page 168 ( Rekha Chaturvedi (Smti.)-Versus-University ofRajasthan and others). That also is a case with regard to the educational qualification and the Supreme Court in paragraph 10 pointed out that the date which is relevant to be considered as last date for filing application. That case is also of no help to the respondents. viii) 2000(5) SCC page (Bhupinderpal Singh and others - Vs- State of Punjab and others). That also was a case with regard to the educational qualification and is of no help to the respondents. 38. That case is also of no help to the respondents. viii) 2000(5) SCC page (Bhupinderpal Singh and others - Vs- State of Punjab and others). That also was a case with regard to the educational qualification and is of no help to the respondents. 38. Considering all the cases I hold that in view of the fact that the writ petitioner acquired the experience at the time of order of termination, the order of termination is bad in law. Otherwise also lack of experience shall stand removed in view of the fact that the writ petitioner/ appellant passed the departmental examination. Further, the writ petitioner/appellant also must have the benefit of OBC as he belongs to that category as per circular quoted above. Accordingly, I come to the conclusion that the writ petitioner had the requisite qualification to be appointed as the Principal and the order of termination as quoted above shall stand quashed. I agree with the judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice DN Chowdhury for the reasons indicated above and disagree with the judgment of Hon'ble the Chief Justice (Brijesh Kumar) and I allow the writ appeal filed by the writ petitioner.