JUDGMENT Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Sri R. N. Singh, senior advocate, assisted by Sri A. R. Dubey for petitioner. Sri. B. N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for U. P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and learned standing counsel for State of U.P. 2. An advertisement was issued by U. P. Public Service Commission dated 16.7.1999 inviting applications for selection to the post of Regional Inspector (Technical) as well as Assistant Regional Inspector (Technical) in Transport Department. Petitioner, Rajiv Kumar Bansal applied in pursuance of the said advertisement. Para 5 of the advertisement provided for eligibility for application, namely, that applicant should have passed High School Examination from U. P. Secondary Education Board or equivalent examination, a diploma in mechanical or automobile engineering from any institute ; Technical Education Board, U. P. or equivalent examination, practical experience of at least five years in a large automobile workshop with regard to repairs, overhauling, supervision of motor vehicles, licence for driving heavy motor vehicles, and knowledge of Hindi in Dev Nagari script. The advertisement also provided eligibility for Assistant Regional Inspector (Technical). Petitioner who has passed both High School and Intermediate examination in first division and holds degree of B.E. (Mech.) in first division, from Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Maha-rasthrawara University, Aurangabad (Maharashtra), applied along with other candidates. For practical experience, petitioner enclosed two certificates, namely ; one from Hindustan Automobiles which was approved by the Government from 10th May, 1994 and another certificate issued by Zaheer Engineering Works from 1st January, 1997. The written examinations were to commence from 26.8.2000. His candidature was rejected by the Commission, vide letter dated 27.7.2000 on the ground that his experience certificate is not admissible. 3. Petitioner filed a writ petition which was dismissed by learned single Judge on 17.8.2000, on the ground that petitioner was not holding requisite experience for the post. An application for recall of the order/review was also rejected on 24.8.2000. Aggrieved, petitioner filed Special Appeal No. 515 of 2000, in which by order dated 25.8.2000, while granting time to the respondents to file counter-affidavit, and rejoinder-affidavit, following interim order was passed : “There will be an interim order directing the respondents to allow the appellant to appear in the examination scheduled to take place on 26.8.2000. The result of the examination of appellant shall abide the result of the special appeal.” 4. The result of the examination of appellant shall abide the result of the special appeal.” 4. Petitioner was permitted to appear in written examination as well as practical examination and was thereafter called for interview. His result was, however, withheld due to pendency of aforesaid special appeal. The appeal was heard and decided on 16.7.2001. The Bench vide order dated 16.7.2001 held and decided as follows : “The contention of Mr. S. K. Singh, learned counsel for the Commission before us is that the candidates 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 famed under the U. P. Motor Vehicles Act. 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 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 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. Accordingly, the order passed by the single Judge is set aside and the special appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.” 5. The Commission shall take decision in the matter expeditiously. Accordingly, the order passed by the single Judge is set aside and the special appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.” 5. The Examination Controller of U. P. Public Service Commission vide its order dated 23.8.2001, reconsidered the matter regarding petitioner’s eligibility with regard to his practical experience. It is stated in this order impugned in this writ petition that the Commission in consultation with Transport Commissioner, U. P., considered the eligibility of all the candidates, prior to selections, keeping only such workshops in the category of large automobile workshops, which are (1) approved by U. P. Government ; (2) Department of State Government or Central Government which has its own large automobile workshop ; (3) a Corporation which has its own large workshop ; and (4) workshop of authorised dealers of heavy and light vehicles where repairs and overhauling is carried out. Petitioner has produced experience certificate from two different establishments in which the first certificate is of two and half years, and the other for rest of the period. The first certificate shows that the workshop was earlier approved by the State Government and if this workshop may be treated as large workshop, even then the experience is of two and half years, whereas the experience required for Regional Inspector (Technical), is five years and for Assistant Inspector (Technical), three years. The second certificate given by Zaheer Engineer Works signed by Zaheer Mistry. It does not show that it is approved by the State Government or gives the nature of work carried out in the workshop. This workshop (Zaheer Engineering Works) was thus not treated to be large workshop and thus petitioner was not found to have even three years experience, and thus the result of his examination was not declared. Thereafter by notification dated 6.3.2002 issued by Secretary of Commission, petitioner’s candidature for Assistant Regional Inspector examination was rejected. 6. Sri R. N. Singh, senior advocate, assisted by Sri A. R. Dubey, has made two submissions. Firstly, it is contended that the earlier eligibility for the aforesaid posts was specified under Rule 8 (1) and (2) of the U. P. Transport (Subordinate) Service Rules, 1980, made by the State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, notified on 23.8.1980. Firstly, it is contended that the earlier eligibility for the aforesaid posts was specified under Rule 8 (1) and (2) of the U. P. Transport (Subordinate) Service Rules, 1980, made by the State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, notified on 23.8.1980. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act No. 59 of 1988) was enacted, to consolidate and amend the law relating to Motor Vehicles, and repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1959 and any law corresponding to the Act in force to any State immediately before commencement of the Act. Section 213 corresponding to Section 133A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, provides for appointment of Motor Vehicles Officers. Sub-section (4) of Section 213, provides that Central Government may, having regard to the objects of the Act, by notification in the Official Gazette, prescribe minimum qualifications which the said officers or any class thereof shall possess for being appointed as such. By notification dated 12.6.1989, the Central Government has laid down the prescribed minimum qualification for Inspector of Motor Vehicles or Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles which provides in sub-clause (3) working experience of at least one year in a reputed automobile workshop which undertakes repairs of both light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engine. The advertisement issued by the Commission dated 16.7.1999, did not give out the qualification correctly in accordance with rules and provisions of Section 213 (4) of the Act. Secondly, he submits, in the alternative, that the Service Rules, 1980, do not define large automobile workshop and that restrictions placed by the Commission in consultation with Transport Commissioner to only four categories of large automobile workshop, are arbitrary, discrimi-natory and violative of the order deciding petitioner’s civil appeal dated 16.7.2001, in which the Court held that it was unreasonable to construe large automobile workshop, as only that workshop which was approved by the State Government, and that decision of Commission cannot override statutory rule. 7. Sri B. N. Singh, appearing for U. P. Public Service Commission defended the order passed by the Commission and submitted that the guidelines laid down in consultation with Transport Commissioner were provided to avoid any ambiguity. Only four categories of automobile works were considered to fit in the expression. All the candidates were required to fulfil the same criteria without causing any discrimination. Only four categories of automobile works were considered to fit in the expression. All the candidates were required to fulfil the same criteria without causing any discrimination. He has relied upon the State of U. P. v. Refiquddin and others, AIR 1988 SC 162 (Para 30), where the Supreme Court made scathy remarks against the functioning of the Commission in changing the norms of selection and held that Commission is an independent expert body. It has to act in an independent manner in making selections on the prescribed norms. It may consult the State Government and the High Court in prescribing the norms for judging the suitability of candidates if no norms are prescribed in the Rules. Once the Commission determines the norms and makes selection on the conclusion of the competitive examination and submits list of the suitable candidates to the Government, it should not reopen the selection by lowering down the norms at the instance of the Government. It further held that Commission should take firm stand in these matters in making the selection in accordance with the norms fixed by law or fixed by it in accordance with law uninfluenced by the directions of the State Government unsupported by the Rules. 8. U. P. Transport (Subordinate) Technical Service Rules, 1980, notified on 23.8.1980, made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India have provided for U. P. Transport Technical Service, consisting of posts of Technical Inspector/Regional Inspector (Technical) and Assistant Regional Inspector (Technical) whereas all the posts of Assistant Regional Inspector (Technical) have to be filled by direct recruitment through Commission, fifty percent posts of Inspectors are to be filled through Commission and rest of the fifty percent by promotion from amongst those Assistant Regional Inspectors (Technical) who have completed five years service. Their eligibility has been laid down in Rules 8 (1) and (2). After enforcement of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 213 (1) provided that the State Government may, for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act, establish a Motor Vehicles Department and appoint such officers thereof and such persons as it thinks fit. The minimum qualifications of the said officers or any class thereof was to be prescribed by the Central Government under sub-section (4) of Section 213. The minimum qualifications of the said officers or any class thereof was to be prescribed by the Central Government under sub-section (4) of Section 213. The Central Government has in exercise of the aforesaid powers prescribed the minimum qualification for Inspectors and Assistant Inspectors of Motor Vehicles (by whatever names called). The notification is quoted as below : “Ministry of Surface Transport (Transport Wing), Notification No. S.O. 443 (E), dated June 12, 1989, published in the Gazette of India, Extra., Part II, Section 3 (ii), dated 12th June, 1989. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), the Central Government hereby prescribes that the minimum qualification for the class of officers consisting of the category of Inspector of Motor Vehicles or Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles (by whatever names called) shall be as under : Qualification : (1) Minimum general educational qualification of a pass in X standard ; and (2) a diploma in Automobile Engineering (3 years course) or a diploma in Mechanical Engineering awarded by the State Board of Technical Education (3 years course) ; and (3) working experience of at least one year in a reputed automobile workshop which undertakes repairs of both light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles, and heavy passenger motor vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engine ; and (4) must hold a driving licence authorising him to drive motor cycle, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger motor vehicles. 2. Nothing contained in the notification shall apply to an officer appointed to such post before the first day of July, 1989 and to an officer appointed to discharge function of a non-technical nature. 3. This notification shall come into force on the first day of July, 1989.” 9. With the aforesaid statutory exercise of power by the Central Government under sub-section (4) of Section 213, the minimum qualification for Inspector of Motor Vehicles or Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles, (by whatever names called) substituted the qualifications laid down under the old Act, or under any of the Rules made by State Government, under the old Act which continued to operate under Section 217 (2) (a). The minimum qualification prescribed in Rule 8 of the U. P. Transport (Subordinate) Technical Service Rules, 1980, thus stands superseded. The minimum qualification prescribed in Rule 8 of the U. P. Transport (Subordinate) Technical Service Rules, 1980, thus stands superseded. It appears that the aforesaid notification dated 12.6.1989 was not brought to the notice of the U. P. Public Service Commission by the Transport Department of Uttar Pradesh and this Court in special appeal, and thus the advertisement mentioned the qualifications as provided in 1980 Rules was accepted. A comparison of these qualifications show that whereas the educational qualifications and a licence for vehicles is the same except that the notification provides a licence to drive motor cycle as well, and does not insist upon a knowledge of any regional language. The working experience has been reduced to one year, and the word ‘large automobile workshop’ has been replaced by word ‘reputed automobile workshop’. It further provided that the workshop should undertake repairs of both, light motor vehicles, heavy goods vehicles and heavy passenger vehicles fitted with petrol and diesel engine. 10. In the present case, the Commission did not object to the first experience certificate of two and half years furnished by petitioner in a workshop which was approved by the State Government. This workshop of ‘Hindustan Automobile, G. T. Road, Aligarh’ certified that petitioner had worked as workshop supervisor since 10th May, 1994 till the issuing of certificate on 22.11.1996. Petitioner as such fulfils requisite experience of at least one year in a reputed automobile workshop. He was as such qualified to be considered and that his candidature could not have been rejected by the Commission on this ground. 11. Sri. B. N. Singh submits that advertisement was issued and selections held, taking into account the Rules, 1980, in which five years experience in a large automobile workshop was the work experience required and that in case, it is held that the minimum qualification prescribed by the Central Government should have been adopted, the entire selection may be affected. I do not agree with his submission. The comparison of the qualification shows that all other qualifications have been left intact except the possession of licence to driving motor cycle which is added by the Central Government and the knowledge of Hindi as prescribed into the Rules, 1994. Only significant variation is reduction of period in work experience. This may not effect the candidature of selected candidates, inasmuch as all of them must have possessed five years working experience. Only significant variation is reduction of period in work experience. This may not effect the candidature of selected candidates, inasmuch as all of them must have possessed five years working experience. The selections could be challenged by those who had lesser working experience upto one year, and had no knowledge of Hindi language and thus could not apply. The selections, however, cannot be set aside for those who have not chosen to challenge it. There is nothing on record that any person has challenged or complained against the minimum qualification. Where selections have been held by a Constitutional body after wide advertisement, efforts should be made to save it. In this case, I find that petitioner is highly qualified and has already appeared in the written and practical examinations and also in interviews. The entire selection, therefore, cannot be set aside for those who could have but have not challenged it. 12. A note of caution may, however, be put to the Transport Department of the State of U. P. as well as Commission to be more vigilant with regard to statutory changes which may have taken place before issuing the advertisement for selection, as it affects public confidence in these institutions. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Petitioner is held to possess minimum qualifications including the work experience for the post of Regional Inspector (Technical). He has already appeared in the written and practical examinations and interview. By interim order dated 1.4.2002 in this writ petition, respondents were directed not to issue appointment letter against one post to enable petitioner’s case to be considered if the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are as such directed to declare petitioner’s result and in case he is found to be successful, he is held entitled to one post of Regional Inspector (Technical) or Assistant Regional Inspector (Technical) as the case may be, in order of merit, and subject to rules of reservation. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.