Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Joint petition filed by 34 petitioners who participated in process of selection for the post of Ayurved Chikitshak held by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (“PSC”) (respondent), claiming themselves to be eligible pursuant to advertisement dated 17.01.2002 published in Rajasthan Patrika daily newspaper dated 23.01.2002 (Annexure-1). 2. Since, their candidatures were rejected by PSC when process of interview commenced, this Court vide ad interim stay order dated 27.08.2002 permitted petitioners to provisionally appear in interview with further direction to keep their result in sealed cover and pursuant to ad interim order of this Court, all the petitioners were permitted to appear in interview before selection committee and thereafter this Court directed respondent PSC to present their result in sealed covered vide order dated 09.03.2004 and accordingly sealed cover was opened in presence of the parties on 10.11.2005 and after examining the record, it was recorded that Petitioners No. 5, 7, 8, 13, 18, 25, 28, 32 and 33 have not been able to secure minimum marks; as such, this writ petition qua them was dismissed and rest were allowed to pursue this petition 3. At joint request and with the consent of both the parties, this petition was heard and is being finally disposed of at admission stage. 4. Facts almost are undisputed. Petitioners appeared in Ayurvedacharya (“B.A.M.S.”) 3rd Professional (Main) Examination - January, 2002 - result whereof was declared on 03.06.2002 and they completed their one year internship in June, 2003 and after award of degree they got themselves registered with the Council. 5. Advertisement dated 17.01.2002 (Annexure-1) was issued by PSC inviting applications for the post of Ayurveda Chiktshak, pursuant to which, all the petitioners submitted their applications as there was condition No. 6 stipulated in advertisement that those who were appearing in final year examination, were also eligible to participate but they have to submit their Degree/qualification required under advertisement on the date when they are called for interview before PSC. 6. Respondent PSC informed to petitioners vide different letters -extract whereof is dated 12.08.2002 (Annexure-6) whereby they were intimated date of their interview with the Note that they should submit requisite degree of B.A.M.S., alongwith certificate of internship duly completed on the date of interview, which was to commence from 29.08.2002 to 05.09.2002. 7. 6. Respondent PSC informed to petitioners vide different letters -extract whereof is dated 12.08.2002 (Annexure-6) whereby they were intimated date of their interview with the Note that they should submit requisite degree of B.A.M.S., alongwith certificate of internship duly completed on the date of interview, which was to commence from 29.08.2002 to 05.09.2002. 7. Since, the petitioners failed to submit requisite degree of BAMS and so also completion certificate of one year internship, they were not supposed to be allowed to participate in interview; as such they approached this Court by way of instant petition and by ad interim order, they were permitted to appear in interviews on provisional basis. 8. Counsel for petitioner vehemently contends that as per condition stipulated in advertisement (Annexure-1) all such incumbents appearing in final year examination of BAMS were made eligible to participate in process of selection for the post in question; as such, once petitioners fulfilled that condition, putting additional condition of submissions of Degree of BAMS alongwith completion certificate of internship on the date of interview was arbitrary decision of respondent PSC and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and so also of principles of natural justice. 9. Counsel further contends that respondent PSC was only supposed to take interview of incumbents who fulfilled conditions stipulated in advertisement (Annexure-1) and final selections were to be made by State Government from list of candidates prepared by PSC in terms of Rule 22 of Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy & Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973 (“Rules, 1973”) and during intervening period when appointments were made, petitioners have completed their one years internship also in June, 2003; as such, denial of appointment despite their final selection, was completely unjustified and is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India. 10. Counsel also contends that recruitment vide advertisement (Annexure-1) was a special measure adopted by State Government to fill up back log vacancies of the post reserved for SC/ST, which remained unfilled and even against advertised vacancies in question, a number of eligible candidates in ratio of the vacancies advertised, were not available, in such circumstances, petitioners are now available duly selected by PSC, as such technicality should be ignored while considering their candidature for appointment particularly when they have undergone cumbersome process of selection and finally found suitable to hold the posts in question in terms of Rules, 1973. 11. 11. Respondent in reply to writ petition inter alia averred that under Rules, 1973, Degree of BAMS is a requisite qualification for the post of Ayurveda Chiktshak as notified in advertisement (Annexure-1) and as per University Ordinance 329-N-19(h), the degree can be awarded only on production of certificate of completion of satisfactory internship, as such, internship is an integral part; and duration of course under Order 329-N-19(b) is divided into (i) Main course for 4 and half years; and (ii) Internship for 12 months. 12. Counsel for respondents, per contra, contends that in the absence of requisite degree of BAMS furnished by petitioners, which is in terms of conditions notified in advertisement (Annexure-1) on the date when they are required to appear in interviews, which in cases of instant petitioner was lacking and they were indisputably not eligible; as such, no error was committed by respondent PSC by not permitting them in participation of interview pursuant to advertisement (Annexure-1). In support of his contentions, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of this Court (SB) in Bal Krishna vs. State CWP No. 4427/1995, 4387/1995 and 5073/1995 decided on 12.03.1996 which was upheld by DB in Shambu Lal Sharma & Ors. vs. State, Special Appeal (W) No. 338/1996 decided on 19.08.1996, wherein similar controversy was involved. 13. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and with their assistance examined material on record. Post of Ayurved Chikitsak is included in Scheduled appended to Rules, 1973 and qualification, therefor, which was amended vide Notification dated 04.08.1997 reads as under:- “Degree of Bhisagacharya (Awarded by Rajasthan Ayurved Departmental Examination Board, Ajmer) or Ayurvedacharya i.e., Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine & Surgery (University of Rajasthan) or Qualification recognised as equivalent thereto by the Government.” 14. According to Scheme of Rules, 1973, Degree of Bhisagacharya or Ayurvedacharya or any other equivalent recognised, is minimum qualification to hold post of Ayurved Chikitsak; and degree is awarded under Faculty of Ayurveda after completion of main course of 4 and half years and internship of 12 months as is evident from University Ord. 329-N-19(b) and 19(h), which reads as under:- “A candidate, who after passing the Final Ayurvedacharya (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) examination, shall undergo a course of twelve months post examination training in an institution recognised by the University for the purpose. 329-N-19(b) and 19(h), which reads as under:- “A candidate, who after passing the Final Ayurvedacharya (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) examination, shall undergo a course of twelve months post examination training in an institution recognised by the University for the purpose. He will be entitled to the Award of Ayurvedacharya (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) degree only on production of a certificate from the Head of such an institution stating that the candidate has satisfactorily undergone his post examination training.” 15. Indisputably, while submission of their application forms, petitioners were appearing in final Ayurvedacharya examination, January, 2002 of main course as provided under University Ord. 329-N-19(b) and result whereof was declared in June, 2002 and completed their one year internship which is integral course, in June, 2003 while they were called for interview by respondent PSC in between 29.08.-05.09.2002. Thus, none of petitioners were having Degree of Ayurvedacharya (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) or any other equivalent recognized qualification as referred to in Rules, 1973, nor they have completed 12 months internship which is an integral part of the course for awarding of Degree in question. Hence, in present facts situation, in my opinion, no error was committed by respondent PSC in holding petitioners in-eligible, and not permitting them to appear for interview in course of selection process initiated pursuant to advertisement (Annexure-1 ). 16. Submission made by Counsel for petitioners that as they were eligible in terms of advertisement, no additional condition could have been imposed at the time of interview, in my opinion is of no substance for the reason that Condition No. 6 stipulated in advertisement (Annexure-1), if to be read in totality, which clearly depicts that on the date when aspirants are being called for interview, they must possess requisite qualification of degree, or fulfill condition of eligibility to hold the post under Rules, 1973, and they are supposed to submit requisite degree with certificate of completion of 12 months satisfactory internship and which the petitioners indisputably failed to furnish on the date of interview and merely because they were permitted to appear provisionally under orders of this Court will not confer any right in their favour. 17. 17. As regards submission made by Counsel for petitioner that it is ultimately the Government to examine suitability of aspirants under Rule 22 of Rules, 1973, suffice is to say that the PSC has first to consider eligibility of incumbents while called for interview, and prepare list of such applicants found suitable in course of interview, which is forwarded to the Government in terms of Rule 20 and thereafter State Government make over all suitability under Rule 22 of Rules, 1973, before appointment is offered to aspirants. In instant case, petitioners failed to fulfill conditions of eligibility in course of interview, itself , as such Rule 22, ibid, has no application in present case. 18. As regards last submission made by Counsel for petitioners that since it was special measure of recruitment adopted by Government for making appointment against unfilled vacancies of reserved category of SC/ST, in my opinion, while filling vacancies, eligibility of incumbents has to be first looked into and if are not eligible to participate in process of selection for one or the other reasons, merely because it was a special measure, in-eligible candidates at least cannot be considered for appointment in violation of Rules, 1973. 19. Judgment referred to by Counsel for respondent PSC, wherein similar controversy had arisen as in instant case, fortifies the view that those who have not completed their one year of internship which is an integral part of the course for awarding degree of Ayurvedacharya (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery), are not eligible to participate in process of selection/interview under Rules, 1973. 20. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed alongwith Stay Petition No. 5304/2002 and participation of petitioners in interview under interim orders of this Court stands cancelled. No costs.