JUDGMENT V.K. Gupta, C.J. (Oral):- With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal today. 2. A very short point arises for our consideration in this case and that is relating to the interpretation of the two years experience requirement as contemplated in H.P. Technical Education, Vocational & Industrial Training Department Recruitment and promotion Rules, 1987 for the post of Group Instructor/ Foreman. Under the heading Minimum educational & other qualification required for direct recruits", the following has been prescribed;- “(i) Matric with Science & Math from recognised University/Board or equivalent, (ii) Three years Diploma in Engg. From a recognised State Board or Technical Education or equivalent, (iii) Two years experience in an Industrial Training Institution and or in reputed Industrial concern. ESSENTIAL. Knowledge of customs and manner and dialects of H.P. suitability for appointment in particular condition prevailing in Himachal Pradesh." 3. Since admittedly in this case, respondent No.1 even though possessed academic qualification of Matric with Science and Math and also three years Diploma in engineering from a recognised Institution as provided for in the 1987 Rules, in so far as the requirement of two years experience in an Industrial Training Institution and/or in a reputed industrial concern was concerned, the admitted case of respondent No.1 before the Tribunal was that this experience of two years had not been gained by him after he had obtained the aforesaid academic qualification of three years Diploma in Engineering in as much as this experience was obtained by him before he had obtained the academic qualification. Because the petitioners found respondent No.1 ineligible for consideration for direct recruitment on the ground that the 1987 Rules stipulated and require that two years experience should have been obtained after three years Diploma qualification, respondent No,1 approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide the impugned judgment allowed the Original Application No. 935 of 2002 and issued a specific direction to the petitioners to offer appointment to respondent No.1 in terms of recommendations made by the H.P. Subordinate Selection Board. 4. During the course of hearing today, Mr. 4. During the course of hearing today, Mr. Maniktala, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has invited our attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta and others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others {(2000) 1 SCC 128} wherein their Lordships, while considering an identical situation held that two years professional experience need not entirely be an experience gained after obtaining degree. Even though in Anil Kumar Guptas case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme court were dealing with a specific question of law relating to the service having been put in as an eligible condition and criteria, and yet in so far as the requirement of professional experience of two years was concerned, it also fell for their Lordships consideration in the aforesaid judgment, and after taking notice of some earlier judgments of the Supreme Court, it was held that the provision regarding experience wherever it spoke only "professional experience" for two years, did not in any manner connect with the degree qualification. We quote with advantage 20 of the aforesaid judgment. It reads thus:- "We may at the outset state that the provision regarding experience speaks only of "professional experience for two years and does not, in any manner, connect it with the degree qualification. In our view, the case on hand is similar to Subhash v. Stale of Maharashtra, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 332, where, while considering Rule 3(e) of the relevant recruitment rules, namely, the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Department (Recrurtment)Rulesf 1991, this Court pointed out that Rule 3(e) which required one years experience in a registered automobile workshop did not make any difference between acquisition of such experience prior to or after the acquisition of the basic qualification." 5. In the cases of A.K Raghumani Singh and others vs Gopal Chandra Nath and others [(2000) 4 SCC 30] once again dealing with a similar situation, their Lordships of the supreme court expressed the same view and actually in para 15 of that judgment took note of judgment in Anil Kumar Gupta s case ( supra) by clarifying that in Anil Kumar Gupta’s case, the court had clearly interpreted the expression to mean that the two years professional experience need not entirely be experience gained after obtaining the degree". 6. 6. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law as now laid and settled by the supreme court we have no hesitation in agreeing with view of the Tribunal that in the facts and circumstances of this case respondent No. I was eligible because whether the experience was gained by him before he obtained the academic qualification or after that was not the issue as long as he had obtained the requisite experience from an Industrial Training Institution or an institution duly recognized. However in so far as specific direction of the Tribunal to the effect that respondent No.1 be offered an appointment for the post of foreman / group instructor we modify that direction by saying that even though the respondent No.1 shall be held eligible his actual appointment would be dependent upon his having been selected along with other eligible candidates and also falling in the zone of appointment based an such selection based on such selection The petition is dismissed . Interim order vacated . No orders as to costs.