JUDGMENT V. K. Gupta, CJ.—With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up today for final disposal. 2. By the judgment dated 25th November, 2002 passed by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1853 of 1999, by some process of reasoning with which we do not at all agree, came to the conclusion that the Diploma qualifications obtained by respondents No. 1 and 2 (Diploma in Ayurvedic Pharmacy) from two Institutions in Bihar should be considered as conforming to eligibility requirements of the Recruitment and Promotions Rules, and thus by allowing the Original Application directed the petitioners to treat the two respondents as eligible for their appointment as Ayurvedic Pharmacists and consequently to consider them for such appointment. 3. Under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1988, it has, inter alia, been laid down that only such persons shall be eligible for appoitment as Ayurvedic Pharmacists, who are Matric/Higher Secondary Part-I with Science and who additionally possess Ayurvedic Compounders/Ayurvedic Pharmacists Diploma of two years duration as obtained from such Institutions which are recognised by : (1) Central Government; or (2) State Government, or (3) State Board of Indian System of Medicine, or (4) Central Council of Indian Medicine. 4. Undoubtedly, neither the State of Himachal Pradesh has recognised the aforesaid qualification as was obtained by respondents No. 1 and 2 or the aforesaid Institutions from where this qualification was obtained by these two respondents, nor have these been recognised by the State Board of Indian System of Medicine or the Central Council of Indian Medicine. The Tribunal in its process of reasoning erroneously relied upon a communication from the Additional Director, CGHS (Headquarter), wherein it was mentioned that one Chandrika Kumar, who had obtained the same qualification from one of the Institutions in Bihar was offered the post of Pharmacist under the Central Government Health Scheme, Delhi. Some one being offered a post does not amount to the Central Government recognising the qualification or the Institution: 5. Mr. Dogra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 also drew our attention to a communication dated 24th September, 1997 from the Deputy Secretary to the Government-cum-Joint Director addressed to the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Health), Government of Himachal Pradesh, wherein some mention has been made about the students having studied in Bihar. Mr. Dogra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 also drew our attention to a communication dated 24th September, 1997 from the Deputy Secretary to the Government-cum-Joint Director addressed to the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Health), Government of Himachal Pradesh, wherein some mention has been made about the students having studied in Bihar. This letter does not at all make any mention or reference about the aforesaid two Institutions or the qualification obtained from these Institutions and, therefore, this letter cannot be termed as a recognition of these two Institutions by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 6. We totally disapprove the view of the Tribunal that the expression "State Government" as used in Recruitment and Promotion Rules qua the recognition can be extended to any State in the country. The expression "State Government" as occurring in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules qua the recognition has to be given its proper and logical meaning only in the context in which it has been used and the meaning, therefore, which contextually has to be applied in the "State of Himachal Pradesh" because the employment being offered is in Himachal Pradesh State and, therefore, only the State of Himachal Pradesh is the competent authority to grant recognition to a qualification or an Institution. If a qualification or an Institution has been recognised by another State Government cannot by itself amount to recognition by the State of Himachal Pradesh nor can it bind the State of Himachal Pradesh. 7. Based on the aforesaid reasoning, therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal went totally wrong in its view as well as in the ultimate direction that it issued upon the petitioners. The Tribunals judgment is accordingly set aside with all the consequences. 8. At this stage, Mr. Dogra submits that his clients be permitted to make a representation to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for some sort of accommodatioroso that either the Government of Himachal Pradesh agrees to grant them the facility of a condensed course in one of the Institutions being run in the State of Himachal Pradesh or some other facility, keeping in consideration the qualification obtained by them from the aforesaid Institutions in Bihar. 9. 9. The prayer seems to be totally innocuous and, therefore, while taking note of this prayer, we direct that if the petitioners make such a representation, the State Government shall consider it purely on its merits and in accordance with law, Rules and Regulations applicable on the subject and dispose it of within a period of three months from the date of its receipt. 10. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. CM.Ps. No. 1221, 2219 & 2190 of 2003 : 11. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, all the applications shall stand disposed of and interim order dated 27th August, 2003 shall stand vacated. -