Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-This appeal raises a question about the qualificati held by the petiti ner-appellant. The short question is whether the ion held by the petiti er, who is an ex-serviceman, be treated as fulfilling the requisite ion for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspect r/Commander under the Rajasthan Police Service Subordinate Rules, 1989 read with Rajasthan Civil Service (Absorption of Ex-Serviceman) Rules, 1988. 2. The post in question are encadred in Rajasthan Police Service Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 on which qualification prescribed for Sub-Inspector for direct recruitment is Degree in Arts, Commerce or Science of the University established by law in India. The qualification for Commander is also same as the qualification of Sub-Inspector. In the advertisement issued for filling three posts reserved for Ex-serviceman vide advertisement dated 07.1997 the qualification was that the candidate must hold the Degree of Graduation in Arts, Commerce or Science from any university established by law in India. 3. The petitioner-appellant admittedly does not hold such qualification. However, the petitioner claims that he fulfills the qualifications of graduate on the basis of certificate issued by the Indian Navy in which it has been stated that after laying down the criteria stated as per the Ex-serviceman (Re-employment Central Civil Services and Post Rules) 1979 as amended by the amending Rules of 1986 certifying that the petitioner who is pensioner and Ex-serviceman is eligible for appointment where educational qualifications is Graduation. The certificate has been issued on 21st July, 1997 after he retired from service on 4th July, 1997. 4. The petitioners case was not considered because he has not submitted proof about the fact that he has obtained degree of graduation from any university established by law in any of above subject about which he was informed vide communication dated 25.09.1997. After submitting a representation and a demand notice, the writ petition was filed out of which the present appeal has arisen. 5. The contention of the petitioner-appellant is that the Rules of 1988 are complete code in themselves and for the purpose of eligibility of an ex-serviceman one cannot look outside those rules in the relevant service rules providing for recruitment and appointment to the post under particular service under the State of Rajasthan. 5. The contention of the petitioner-appellant is that the Rules of 1988 are complete code in themselves and for the purpose of eligibility of an ex-serviceman one cannot look outside those rules in the relevant service rules providing for recruitment and appointment to the post under particular service under the State of Rajasthan. Unless specific qualifications are provided by the Rules of 1988, wherever a candidate is required to hold qualification of graduate, the qualification which has been certified to be equal to graduation by the Indian Army/Nevy or Air Force for the purpose of satisfying the requisite qualification, the petitioner cannot be held ineligible only for the reason that he does not hold the qualification prescribed under the Rules of 1989. This contention did not find favour with the learned Single Judge and the petition was dismissed vide Judgment dated 24th August, 2001 under appeal. 6. The learned Single Judge referred to letter dated 17.07.2001 submitted by the respondent Sanik Board that it has sought recognition but till today no such recognition has been granted, therefore, the learned Single Judge was also of the opinion that recognition of equivalence, if any, subsequently granted to the said course cannot retrospectively make the petitioner eligible in the selection which took place in 1997. 7. Our attention was invited by the learned Counsel for the appellant to various rules providing minimum age limit up to which ex-serviceman is considered eligible under the Rules of 1988. The application of the respective ex-serviceman in the matter of promotion and recruitment after they have been appointed and selected to the service and the requirement of minimum certification of good character at the time of retirement or discharge from the defence service is also provided and on these premises, it has been contended that since no separate provision has been prescribed for educational qualification, the norm prevalent amongst the ex-serviceman under the Ex-servicemen (Reemployment Central Civil Services and Post) Rules, 1979 governed the question of qualification held by Ex-serviceman for the purpose of his eligibility under any service rules. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the aforesaid contention and perused the Rules of 1988 closely. 9. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the aforesaid contention and perused the Rules of 1988 closely. 9. We may state that the expression "absorption" used in Rules of 1988 is a misnomer, inasmuch as it does not provide recruitment by absorption against any existing vacancies but provide a definite method of recruitment to various services specified in Schedule I by direct recruitment by providing an independent method of selection of ex-serviceman for recruitment to such post. 10. The scheme of Rules unfold that primary object of the Rules of 1988 is to provide reservation for ex-serviceman to the existing vacancies upto the limit prescribed in proviso to Rule 2 by making them eligible for recruitment. In other words, it provides a separate source of recruitment to various services of the State upto 12 ½ % of the posts in Ministerial and Subordinate Services; and 15% of the posts in class IV service to be filled in a year by direct recruitment. It further provides for adjustment of ex-serviceman quota vis-à-vis the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the maximum limit up to which the reservation can go and to the extent unfilled vacancies from amongst ex-serviceman can be carried forward but the provision is primarily for reserving certain number of seats to be filled by direct recruitment in any year for the posts encarded or mentioned in Schedule I, in which the post in question finds place. Therefore, it is legitimate to say that under the Rules of 1988 as well as under the Rules of 1989 certain posts could be reserved for ex-servicemen and if the posts have been so reserved to the extent the provisions have been made in Rules of 1988 and if such reservation is not conformity with the reservation provided under General Service Rules, the Rules of 1988 may prevail. However, the question is where in respect of any aspect, no specific provision has been made in Rules of 1988 and procedure of selection is left to be decided by the authorities under the Rules of 1988, whether appointment could be offered by such authority by ignoring the eligibility prescribed under relevant service rules under which the post exists and to which the recruitment is sought to be made. 11. Rule 2, in our opinion, is clear enough. 11. Rule 2, in our opinion, is clear enough. It does not envisage different eligibility criteria for any post under specified rules as has been provided under the respective Service Rules for recruitment to specified number of posts for which special method of recruitment by selection board constituted under Rule 14 of Rules of 1988 has been provided. Rule 2 reads as under:- "2. Scope Notwithstanding the provisions contained in any existing rules regulation the recruitment and promotion of persons in various services of the State or in the rules that may be framed hereinafter, the ex-servicemen shall be eligible for recruitment and appointment to the posts in all the Departments of the State Government as specified in Schedule -I: Provided that - (1) Such appointment shall not exceed- .(a) 12½% of the posts in Ministerial and Subordinate Services; and .(b) 15% of the posts in class IV service to be filled in a year by direct recruitment. (2) The total number of reserved vacancies including those reserved for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other categories taken together shall not exceed 50% of the posts to be filled in a particular year. .(3) Therecruitment of ex-servicemen shall be subject to the availability of vacancies after the full quota of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes exhausted to the extent of their reservation. .(4) If any ex-servicemen belonging to the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes is selected against the vacancy reserved for ex-servicemen as laid down in proviso (1), the said selection shall be counted against the overall quota of the reservation that shall be provided for the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in accordance with the orders issued by the Government from time to time. .(5) Whether a reserve vacancy remains unfilled for non-availability of suitable ex-servicemen such vacancy may be filled in from other source in accordance with the rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service for persons appointed to such post as if the vacancy was not reserved: Provided that the reserved vacancy so reserved shall be carried forward to the next recruitment year whereafter the vacancy in question shall be treated as unreserved." 12. No provision envisages relaxation in eligibility qualification required for the post under the rules to which post to be filled belongs. 13. No provision envisages relaxation in eligibility qualification required for the post under the rules to which post to be filled belongs. 13. It is clear that it is a rule of reservation confined to the stage of direct recruitment against the vacancies of every year which is determined under Rule 5 which envisages that the administrative departments or the Head of the departments, as the case may be, shall, in respect of the posts specified in Schedule-I determine every year as far as possible in the month of April, the number of vacancies anticipated during the year according to the quota prescribed in Rule 2 and communicate the same to the Secretary, Rajya Sainik Board alongwith the qualifications for direct recruitment of the concerned posts. 14. Thus, year wise vacancies are to be determined which are required to be filled from amongst the sources provided for ex-serviceman and they are to be posts for direct recruitment. Secondly, Rule 5 makes it clear that it is for the "Head of the Department" or "the administrative department" as the case may be, to convey not only the number of posts required to be filled from amongst the ex-serviceman for a particular year but has also to convey the qualifications required for direct recruitment of the concerned posts. What is conveyed to Rajya Sainik Board is qualification required for the post but no authority has been conferred to determine the required qualification for any post under any particular rule independent of such rules only for the purpose of specific source of recruitment viz ex-serviceman. 15. Since, the vacancies are to be determined year wise by the respective Head of the Department of the service or the administrative Department of the service and the qualification is also connected with the concerned posts and the posts after being filled from amongst ex-servicemen remains under respective service rules to be governed by the Service Rules, before recruitment qualification required for direct recruitment from amongst the ex-servicemen which is to be communicated to the Head of the Department, it must contain necessary information of the qualification required under the rules under which the post exists. Merely by providing an independent source of recruitment does not take away the basic requirement of having the required minimum qualification to hold the post unless provided by some rule or law. Merely by providing an independent source of recruitment does not take away the basic requirement of having the required minimum qualification to hold the post unless provided by some rule or law. No such provision has been made anywhere which does say that the requirement of eligibility qualification required to hold the post for which direct recruitment from amongst the ex-servicemen is to be made shall be different from what has been provided under the rules. In the absence of any specific provision providing equivalence to fulfil the required qualification for separate qualification required for ex-servicemen for recruitment to any particular post, it is not possible to accede to contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the rules of 1988 do not provide specifically any educational qualification. The fact that whenever the rules were to relax the general criterion, has made specific rule regarding it, excludes the extension of Rules of 1986 to govern the recruitment under Rules of 1989 in all matters. Reference may be made to rule relating to relaxation in age criteria. 16. The fact that higher age limit is prescribed than what has been prescribed in Rules of 1989 only operates to the extent the eligibility criteria rule laid down in the respective service rules and it does not lead to any conclusion that may be necessary for providing separate academic qualification for minimum eligibility requirement, independent of the rules under which the post sought to be filled exists. 17. Rule 17 which requires that the character of candidate must be not less than GOOD at the time of discharge from Defence (Army, Navy, Air Force) Service as shown in his Discharge Book only makes it clear that notwithstanding the qualification holding eligibility an ex-servicemen becomes entitled for consideration against reserve quota and he is certified to be of good character. If he does not hold such character certificate he may not be admitted to the benefit of Rules of 1988 in any matters. However, it may not render him ineligible to compete in open market if he is eligible to be considered for appointment to such post independent of the Rules of 1988. It may be noticed that Rules of 1988 only confers a benefit to class of persons (who fall within it) and there is no independent benefit flowing from Rule of 1988. It may be noticed that Rules of 1988 only confers a benefit to class of persons (who fall within it) and there is no independent benefit flowing from Rule of 1988. If a person is otherwise eligible in open market condition and so desires, he is not deprived from doing so. 18. The fact that seniority provisions and probation or confirmation is governed the respective rules under which the candidate has been appointed as per Rule 20 of the Rule 1988, is only clarificatory in nature inasmuch as after a person is appointed to the particular service in absence of rule, he will be governed by the relevant rules governing such service in the matter of seniority; probation and confirmation only reservation of posts and separate procedure for recruitment is envisaged. Rule 20 only clarifies that no additional advantage has been conferred on the ex-servicemen in the matter of assignment of seniority, confirmation or probation because of his long tenure of service in the defence. The fact that Rule 2 comes into operation only when one is recruited to service is not relevant to the issue raised before us inasmuch as in case of recruitment, the question of seniority, probation and confirmation, fixation of pay and entitlement to leave encashment, other allowances and pension etc. can be determined only thereafter, and would not be predetermined before one enters the service. 19. The fact that under Rule 5, the concerned Head of the Department or Administrative Department in respect of the posts specified in Schedule-I has to determine and convey the number of posts to which recruitment is sought under Rules of 1988 and further requirement under Rule 11 is that on receipt of requisition of post (s) from the concerned departments, the applications for recruitment shall be invited by the Secretary, Rajya Sainik Board does not lead to inference about eligibility criterion. Obviously the Secretary is also required to publish the eligibility of appointment at that stage. Since, the post under definite service rules reserved for ex-servicemen are subject to filling up through a separate method of recruitment under the rules, it does not import a separate eligibility requirement for the post then required under any specific rules in absence of any specified provision either under the recruitment Rules to the service or otherwise under the Rules of 1988 as a whole. 9.20. 9.20. We do not find any support for the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. On the other hand, it fully supports the decision taken by the respondents that unless he holds the requisite qualification for the post under relevant service rules; he cannot be held eligible for consideration. 10.21. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant founded on the certificate issued by the Indian Navy in which reference has been made to the rules of 1979 making the qualification prescribed thereunder equivalent to the graduate also cannot be accepted for the reasons that Rules of 1979 are specific that they apply to re-employment in central service. Apparently whatever has been stated in the rules for recruitment in the central service cannot be extended for recruitment to the posts under the State. Making rules and providing procedure for other candidates for recruitment to the service under State is the exclusive privilege of the State legislation or the rule making authority under the State and it cannot be guided or governed by the rules framed for the purpose of appointment to central services. Moreover, it is to be seen that the certificate only states that for appointment to any reserved vacancy in group C a matriculation passed is necessary for ex-servicemen who has to have not less than 15 years of service to his credit and he may be considered eligible for appointment to the post and essential qualification prescribed is graduation. Obviously, this equivalence is confined to group C posts under the central service and does not carry the equivalence beyond that purpose. 22. In view thereof , even on its face value it cannot be said to be declaration of equivalence of graduation for the purpose of any post under State services or under the central service and, therefore, we do not find any force in any of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 23. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.