B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) UNION Public Service Commission (UPSC) invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in OA No. 328 of 1999, dated 18-10-2000. The said judgment of the Tribunal is attacked on various grounds. ( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to the question as to whether the impugned judgment suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record requiring any correction as such by this Court in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction, it may be necessary to notice the relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition. ( 3 ) UPSC issued a notification inviting applications for filling up of 234 posts of Enforcement Officers/assistant Accounts Officers in the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Ministry of Labour, Non-GCS, Group b , Non-gazetted by the Advertisement No. SPL/4/97, dated 13-9-1997. In the notification itself, the following qualifications are prescribed:qualifications: Essential :-- (i) Degree of a recognised University or equivalent, (ii) Three years experience in Accounts or establishment. Desirable:--Degree in law from a recognised University or equivalent. Age: Not exceeding 30 years as on 3-10-1997. Note :--The date determining the eligibility of all candidates shall be the normal closing date prescribed for receipt of applications viz. , 3-10-1997. ( 4 ) THE respondent-applicant applied for the said post. It may be necessary to notice that the respondent-applicant was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi and rendered service as such from 19-3-1993 to 16-8-1994 in the Accounts Branch. Thereafter, he joined the Employees Provident Fund Organisation under the control of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Grad-I, Barkatpura, Hyderabad in Sub-Regional Office, Nizamabad from 17-8-1994. At the relevant time, the respondent-applicant was working as Upper Division Clerk in the Accounts and Establishment Section of Employees Provident Fund Organisation. There is no dispute whatsoever that he obtained B. A. degree in May, 1995 from Andhra University, Waltair. ( 5 ) THE respondent-applicant having appeared for the test conducted by the UPSC in connection with the said notification passed the test and he was accordingly informed by the UPSC vide letter dated 21-12-1998 that he qualified for the interview and he was asked to fill up the detailed application form which was enclosed to that letter. ( 5 ) THE respondent-applicant having appeared for the test conducted by the UPSC in connection with the said notification passed the test and he was accordingly informed by the UPSC vide letter dated 21-12-1998 that he qualified for the interview and he was asked to fill up the detailed application form which was enclosed to that letter. He was further directed that the documents mentioned in that letter are to be forwarded along with the application form to the UPSC. However, in the said letter, it is clarified that mere sending of the detailed application form does not, ipso facto, confer any right on the respondent-applicant for admission to the interview and a letter for interview will be issued in due course, if he is found eligible in all respects. ( 6 ) THERE is also no dispute whatsoever that the respondent-applicant, as directed by the UPSC, submitted his application form giving the required particulars. ( 7 ) THE UPSC by its proceedings dated 5-2-1999 rejected the candidature of the respondent-applicant for the above post. It would be appropriate to notice the whole of the proceedings dated 5-2-1999, since the whole controversy centres around the same. It reads:speed Postno. F. 1/501796-SPC/r. No. 4035 Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road New Delhi-11, The 5-2-1999to T. Sreedhar Guntur (Dt.)SUBJECT:--RECTT. of 234 Enforcement officers/ Asstt. Accounts Officers in the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Ministry of Labour. ( 8 ) THE respondent-applicant challenged the said proceedings in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench with a prayer to set aside the same and for consequential direction directing the UPSC to interview him along with other eligible candidates or at a later date. ( 9 ) IT would also be necessary to notice the plea taken by the UPSC before the Tribunal in support of the impugned proceedings. In the counter-affidavit, it is inter alia stated that the Commission altogether received 34287 applications in response to the notification referred to hereinabove. The UPSC decided to hold recruitment test and the candidates were accordingly asked to submit their applications in the form as appended in the advertisement which contained general information regarding age, community, essential qualification, experience etc. Reliance is placed upon Column 10 (a) of the application form by which the candidates were required to intimate whether they possess required experience as per essential qualification. Reliance is placed upon Column 10 (a) of the application form by which the candidates were required to intimate whether they possess required experience as per essential qualification. Column 10 (b) states "if yes, total experience after acquiring essential educational qualification (s)". The candidates were short listed on the basis of their claim in the said application form regarding age, qualification, experience etc. The candidates who qualified in the written test were declared eligible to appear for the interview provisionally. The successful candidates were sent detailed application forms and asked to submit the application forms duly filled in along with the necessary documents/ certificates. The respondent-applicant was also declared qualified provisionally for the interview and he was also asked to submit a detailed application form duly filled in along with necessary documents/certificates. On verification of the application form and attached documents/certificates, it was observed that the respondent-applicant has passed Bachelor of Arts in May, 1995. It was further observed that he had acquired experience less than three years from May, 1995 to 3-10-1997, i. e. , closing date of the advertisement. As the respondent-applicant did not possess three years experience as per advertisement he was not allowed to appear for the interview. ( 10 ) IT is further stated that the respondent-applicant indicated in the application form appended with the advertisement in Column 10 (a) that he possessed required experience as per essential qualifications. He also mentioned in Column 10 (b) of the said application form that he possessed 4 years 6 months experience after acquiring essential educational qualification. On the basis of this statement of the respondent-applicant, he was allowed to sit to the written test and as he qualified in the written test he was accordingly asked to furnish information in the detailed application form forwarded to him along with the necessary documents/ certificates. At the time of scrutiny about the eligibility it was noticed that the respondent-applicant has passed Bachelor of Arts in May, 1995, as such he was not allowed to appear at the interview on the ground of having less than three years experience in establishment/accounts after possessing essential educational qualifications. ( 11 ) IT is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the respondent-applicant misled the UPSC by giving wrong information of having three years essential experience after possessing the essential educational qualifications. ( 11 ) IT is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the respondent-applicant misled the UPSC by giving wrong information of having three years essential experience after possessing the essential educational qualifications. Had the respondent-applicant indicated the correct facts in the application form, he would not have been allowed to appear at the written test at all. This is the sum and substance of the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by the UPSC. ( 12 ) THE Tribunal having adverted to the contentions urged and pleadings of the parties and the material available on record held that the impugned order dated 5-2-1999 is unsustainable and accordingly it was set aside. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent-applicant possesses the requisite essential qualifications. The Tribunal further found that it was not open to the UPSC to go against the opinion of the Appointing Authority regarding qualifications and experience. The Tribunal relied upon the statutory rules in arriving at such a conclusion. The Tribunal further held that it is nowhere stated either in the notification or in the recruitment rules that the experience of three years is required to be attained only after the attainment of educational qualifications by the respondent-applicant. ( 13 ) IN this writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel for the UPSC, more or less, reiterated the submissions that were made by the UPSC in the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is contended that the respondent-applicant does not possess the requisite experience and, therefore, lacks essential qualifications. The experience attained by the respondent-applicant after his obtaining the educational qualifications cannot be taken into consideration. ( 14 ) WE have already noticed the essential qualifications prescribed and notified in the advertisement issued by the UPSC for the benefit of the candidates intending to apply for the said posts. In the said notification, it is nowhere stated that three years experience in accounts or establishment required to be possessed by the applicants should be only after obtaining the educational qualifications. On the other hand, in the notification it is stated that the essential qualifications prescribed are: (j) Degree of a recognised University or equivalent; and (ii) Three years experience in Accounts or Establishment. On the other hand, in the notification it is stated that the essential qualifications prescribed are: (j) Degree of a recognised University or equivalent; and (ii) Three years experience in Accounts or Establishment. ( 15 ) WE will now advert to the statutory rules framed by the Central Board in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section 7 (a) of Section 5 (D) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The rules are called "the Employees Provident Fund Organisation Enforcement Officer/assistant Accounts Officer Recruitment Rules, 1990 (for short the Recruitment Rules ). "so far as the post of the Enforcement Officer/assistant Accounts Officer is concerned, the essential qualifications prescribed are : (i) Degree of a recognised University or equivalent; and (ii) Three years experience in accounts or establishment. The rules do not say that the experience, if any, in accounts or establishment of the candidate gained before obtaining the degree of a recognised University or equivalent cannot be taken into consideration. A plain reading of the rules would suggest that what is required by a candidate for the post of Enforcement Officer/assistant Accounts Officer is a degree of a recognised University or equivalent and three years experience in the accounts or establishment. ( 16 ) IN the circumstances, we find it very difficult to accept the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel that the experience of the respondent-applicant in the accounts gained by him before obtaining the educational qualifications cannot be taken into consideration. We accordingly reject the submission. ( 17 ) THE learned Standing Counsel, however, would further contend that the respondent-applicant furnished incorrect information in the application form submitted by him. The relevant entries in the application form may be noticed. Columns 10 (a) and (b) are relevant to be noticed and they are reproduced below:"10. (a) Do you possess the required experience as per essential qualification? (Yes-1; No-2) (b) If yes, total experience after acquiring essential educational qualification (s)". ( 18 ) AS per Column 10 (b) if the candidate possesses the required experience as per the essential educational qualifications, he is required to indicate the total experience gained after acquiring the educational qualification (s ). In the instant case, there is no dispute whatsoever that the respondent-applicant does not possess three years experience in the accounts or establishment after he obtained the essential educational qualifications. In the instant case, there is no dispute whatsoever that the respondent-applicant does not possess three years experience in the accounts or establishment after he obtained the essential educational qualifications. In the application form the petitioner; as against the Column No. 10 (b) stated his experience to be four years six months. It is true that the respondent-applicant does not possess four years six months experience after acquiring the essential educational qualifications. ( 19 ) WE are of the considered opinion that Column No. 10 (b) in the said application form is somewhat extraneous and the same is not in accordance with the recruitment rules referred to hereinabove and the very notification issued by the UPSC. No doubt, as urged by the learned Standing Counsel, the application form is to be read as a part of the notification. But, even if so read, in our considered opinion, that particular Column 10 (b) does not reflect the requirement in law correctly. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the whole of the application form is required to be read in the light of the recruitment rules. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the particular statement/information furnished by the respondent-applicant itself cannot be fatal to Ins case. ( 20 ) THE Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Gupta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (2000) 1 SCC 128 , while interpreting a clause in the employment notification issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi similar to that of the notification on hand held that "on the language of the notification dated 30-6-1989 we are of the view that the two years professional experience need not entirely be experience gained after obtaining the degree". The Supreme Court in the said judgment relied upon its earlier decision in M. B. Joshi v. Satish Kumar Pandey, 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 419, wherein it is held that "if a particular length of service in the feeder post together with educational qualification enables a candidate to be considered for promotion, it will not be proper to count the experience only from the date of acquisition of superior educational qualification because such interpretation will violate the very purpose to give incentive to the employee to acquire higher education". ( 21 ) IN the instant case also it is required to notice that the respondent-applicant is in the service of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Grade-I, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. Obviously, he acquired higher educational qualifications after he joined the service. It is a case where an employee got the experience first and the required educational qualifications later. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it would not be proper to exclude the experience of the respondent-applicant acquired by him before acquiring the essential educational qualifications. ( 22 ) THE learned Standing Counsel, however, made an attempt to submit that the UPSC adopted its own methodology to short list the candidates for calling for the interview and accordingly instead of calling all the candidates who passed the test thought it fit to restrict the interviews to only such candidates who gained essential experience after acquiring the essential educational qualifications. The learned Standing Counsel in support of his submission placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. P. Public Service Commission v. N. K. Potdar, (1994) 6 SCC 293 . In the said case, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Presiding Officers of the Labour Courts constituted under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960. In the said advertisement it was prescribed that the applicant should have practiced as an advocate or a pleader for a total period of not less than five years. But in view of the large number of applications received from the general category candidates against 4 posts, a decision was taken by the Commission to call for interview only 71 applicants, although 188 applicants were eligible, as per requirement of the advertisement. Only those candidates were called for interview who had completed seven and half years of practice although in view of Section 8 (3) (c), five years of practice as an advocate or a pleader in the Madhya Pradesh was the minimum requirement. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Public Service Commission and held that "where the selection is to be made purely on basis of interview, if the applications for such post are enormous in number with reference to the number of posts available to be filled up, then the Commission or the Selection Board has no option but to shortlist such applicants on some rational and reasonable basis". The decision of the Public Service Commission calling for interview only those candidates who had completed 7 1/2 years of practice, although five years of practice as an advocate or a pleader was the minimum requirement, was accordingly upheld. The same was held to be rational and reasonable basis. ( 23 ) THE question that falls for consideration in the instant case is as to whether the UPSC in the instant case had made any such decision restricting the interviews only to such of those candidates who acquired three years of minimum experience after attaining the essential educational qualifications. Had the UPSC taken any such decision, perhaps the whole issue would have taken a different turn altogether. The UPSC, in the instant case, had not taken any such decision restricting the interviews only for such of those candidates who have acquired the essential qualification of three years experience after attainment of the essential educational qualifications. On the other hand, the case of the UPSC is that the respondent-applicant is not at all eligible since he does not possess the essential qualifications. Therefore, we are not impressed by the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel. ( 24 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. The Tribunal did not commit any error apparent on the face of the record requiring any correction as such by this Court in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction. The view taken by the Tribunal has not resulted in any manifest injustice. On the other hand, the view taken by the Tribunal is perfectly in conformity with the statutory rules, viz. , recruitment rules. Any other view excluding the candidates who attained the essential educational qualifications after obtaining the experience may result in infringement of equality. ( 25 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. ( 26 ) THE writ petition fails and shall accordingly stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.