S. K. SEN, C. J. ( 1 ) WE have heard Sri A. P. Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and Sri B. N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents. ( 2 ) IN this special appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 17. 8. 2000 passed, by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by him. ( 3 ) THE appellant has applied for recruitment to the post of Regional Inspector (Technical) and assistant Regional Inspector (Technical ). pursuant to Advertisement No. A-4/e-1 /1999 in U. P. Transport Department. The recruitment was to be made on the basis of the said advertisement, which prescribes educational qualifications and other qualifications enumerated against item No. 5 of the advertisement. It was specifically provided in the advertisement that for the post of regional Inspector (Technical), the candidates must possess five years experience and for assistant Regional Inspector (Technical), the candidates must possess three years practical experience of repairs, overhauling and inspection of motor vehicles in a large automobile workshop. The candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he did not possess the essential qualification inasmuch as the experience certificate produced by the petitioner was issued by a workshop different from the one prescribed for a "large automobile workshop. The said decision of the Commission was challenged in the writ petition. The learned single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition since according to him, the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification of having experience of working in a large automobile workshop. Coming to his conclusion, the learned single Judge relied upon the decision of the commission dated May 12, 2000 taken on the basis of the recommendation made by the transport Department which defines large scale automobile workshop. ( 4 ) THE contention of the Mr. B. N. Singh, learned counsel for the Commission before us is that the candidate must possess practical experience in a large automobile workshop approved by the State Government. It has, however, neither been mentioned in the advertisement nor prescribed in Rule 213 (4) of the Rules framed under the U. P. Motor Vehicles Rules. It will be quite unreasonable to construe the "large automobile workshop as that workshop which was approved by the State Government because many automobile workshops which are very big and cannot be excluded for the purposes. It will be quite unreasonable to construe the "large automobile workshop as that workshop which was approved by the State Government because many automobile workshops which are very big and cannot be excluded for the purposes. Moreover, the decision of the Commission cannot override the statutory Rule. That apart, the advertisement does not also mention that the large automobile workshop only relates to the workshop approved by the State Government. This aspect of the matter. In our view, appears to have been overlooked by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, we are of the view that the U. P. Public Service Commission should reconsider the case of the appellant for appointment afresh and take into account if the appellant has worked in a large automobile workshop meaning thereby the large automobile workshop either approved by the state Government or in the private sector. The Commission shall scrutinize the document and evidence that has been produced by the appellant and in the event the Commission holds that the appellant has no such qualification of work in a large automobile workshop, which is essential pursuant to the advertisement it shall record reasons for the same and in case the Commission finds that the appellant has requisite experience of working in a large automobile workshop. It shall declare result accordingly and recommend the case of the appellant for appointment. The commission shall take decision in the matter expeditiously. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, the order passed by the single Judge is set aside and the special appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. .