Judgment :- Abdul Gafoor, J. The appellants did possess Diploma qualification in Printing Technology. Public Service Commission invited applications for the post of Binder Gr. II. The qualification required was completion of S.S.L.C. course or its equivalent and pass in K.G.T. or M.G.T. Examinations in Book Binding (Lower). Their applications were rejected as they did not possess the required qualification. The appellants contended in O.P.No.10395 of 1997 that their Diploma qualification took in whatever required in a certificate examination and it pre-supposed the qualification notified for recruitment. Therefore, their applications ought to have been accepted and considered for recruitment. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment found that the qualification possessed by the appellants, namely, Diploma in Printing Technology cannot be in any way be conceived as higher qualification to the K.G.T. or M.G.T. Examination in Book Binding. So this appeal. 2. Contending that their qualification of Diploma in Printing Technology presupposes the M.G.T. or K.G.T. Examination the appellants rely on the very recent judgment in Jyoti K.K. & Others v. Kerala Public Service Commission (JT 2002 (Suppl.1) S.C.85). That was a case relating to the recruitment to the post of Sub Engineers in the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board. There, the qualification notified was Diploma in Electrical Engineering whereas the applicants concerned did have the degree qualification in Electrical Engineering. Dealing with that case the Supreme Court held that the degree in Electrical Engineering pre-supposes the acquisition of Diploma in Electrical Engineering. The former qualification was prescribed for direct recruitment to the next higher post of Asst. Engineer than the Sub Engineer. It was in the aforesaid factual situation that the Supreme Court held so. In this case even going by the contentions urged by the counsel for the appellants Diploma in Printing Technology is prescribed as a qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Asst. Foreman. It is the next higher post of Junior Foreman. Binder Gr. II the post in question here, is the feeder category to Binder Gr. I and there is only remote possibility of promotion as Asst. Foreman. 3. The post of Asst. Foreman is a supervisory post whereas the Binder is a worker post to be qualified or expertised in the craft concerned. Therefore the dictum laid down in Jyoti’s case cannot be applied here. I and there is only remote possibility of promotion as Asst. Foreman. 3. The post of Asst. Foreman is a supervisory post whereas the Binder is a worker post to be qualified or expertised in the craft concerned. Therefore the dictum laid down in Jyoti’s case cannot be applied here. The qualification required for a supervisory post in Printing Technology cannot be taken as pre-supposing M.G.T. or K.G.T. Examination certificate in Binding alone. So also merely because the Diploma holders have to pass a paper in Binding to acquire a Diploma qualification it cannot be taken that that paper in the Diploma examination pre-supposes a complete examination in Binding as in the case of M.G.T. or K.G.T. Examination. Therefore we see no reason to interfere with the judgment impugned. 4. Since on an earlier occasion the Public Service Commission considered Diploma holders, it cannot be taken that in this case also the self same attitude shall be adopted by the Public Service Commission. More over a rank list has been published by the P.S.C. in relation to the recruitment in question and few persons have been advised. In such situation it was incumbent on the appellants to implead those persons as the relief to be granted would adversely affect them. No such steps are taken in the matter which was pending since 1997. This attitude also disentitles the appellants to get any relief even if a case is substantiated. Writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.