S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) THE question which arises for consideration in this writ application is as to whether the test required to be passed for holding the post of foreman is a technical qualification or not. The petitioner was promoted as foreman on 15-6-1992 subject to the condition that he should pass sericulture departmental test within the prescribed period. As he failed to pass the said test he was reverted by proceedings in rc. No. 732/99-B, dated 9-6-1999 whereafter he filed the original application before the learned Tribunal the judgment whereof is under challenge before this Court. The tribunal did not go into the question as to whether the said test is a technical test or not but directed the petitioner herein to file a detailed representation with a further direction to the State Government to consider and dispose of the same keeping in view the interim order passed by this Court. The aforementioned question, however, has been considered by a Bench of this Court in director of Sericulture and another vs. K. Narasaiah and another (W. P. Nos. 14558, 14560 and 14562 of 1999)1. By a judgment dated 20-2-2001 this Court considered all the relevant Government Orders operating in the field including G. O. Ms. No. 4, dated 13-11-1990 and held:"as indicated hereinbefore, the conditions of service of the respondents herein, including the qualifications required to be possessed for holding the post of Asst Inspector of Sericulture are governed by statutory rules. Such rules having been framed by the State in exercise of its powers conferred upon it under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the constitution of India, the question of amending the said Rule by providing a relaxation in the academic qualification by issuing a G. O. under article 162 of the Constitution of India would not arise. As noticed hereinbefore, in terms of the said statutory rules, qualifications have been prescribed. Grant of relaxation as regards the essential qualifications to be held by an employee for holding a higher post must be construed strictly. Such relaxation, which would be part of the conditions of service, cannot be granted by an executive order issued under Article 162 of tha Constitution of India, as a result whereof the statutory rules framed under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the constitution of India would stand amended. Such relaxation, which would be part of the conditions of service, cannot be granted by an executive order issued under Article 162 of tha Constitution of India, as a result whereof the statutory rules framed under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the constitution of India would stand amended. Furthermore, the second proviso appended to the G. O. clearly states that such exemption should not be applicable to technical or academic qualifications. As noticed here in before, passing of Sericulture departmental Test Part-I is mandatory for holding a technical post. Possession of such technical qualification is essential for holding the post, which would also be evident from the fact that only those persons who are possessing Bachelor s degree in Sericulture/post Graduate Diploma in Sericulture/short Term Course in sericulture would not be required to pass the said test. The respondents herein have merely passed S. S. C. examination and they do not hold the aforementioned qualifications. Thus, either they were required to have passed the Sericulture Departmental test Part-I or Short Term Course in sericulture. The respondents do not possess either of the said qualifications and thus they do not possess the requisite qualification to hold the post of Asst Inspector of Sericulture. The learned Tribunal, therefore, in our opinion, committed an error in relying upon the decision of this Court in amrutha Rao s case [ 1998 (6) ALD 491 ] particularly in view of the fact that even in G. O. Ms. No. 165, Finance and planning (Finance Wing F. P. I) department, General Administration (Services-C) Department dated 22-4-1997 and in the Government orders issued by the State, as referred to hereinbefore, reference had not been made thereto. " ( 2 ) KEEPING in view the aforementioned findings we are of the opinion that this application is not maintainable. It is dismissed accordingly.