S. S. CHAUHAN, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 18. 5. 2005, by means of which the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Chief Supervisor has been refused. 2. The petitioner in response to an advertisement dated 4. 9. 2001 issued by the opposite party No. 2 applied for the post of Chief Supervisor. The petitioner appeared in the examination and was declared successful. The result was published in the newspaper on 30th December, 2004 and the petitioner was required to appear before the opposite party No. 2 alongwith all the documents by means of letter dated 10. 1. 2005 for verification of documents. The documents of the petitioner were found to be correct and she also submitted all the documents required by the opposite parties. The petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee on 17. 1. 2005 and the Selection Committee found that she was not possessing the requisite qualification of Sociology as one of the subject at Graduate level and therefore, her candidature was not considered and her selection was cancelled. The petitioner is M. A. in Sociology and belongs to Backward category. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is having higher qualification in comparison to qualification of B. A. with Sociology as one of the subject and therefore, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be refused merely because she is not having the qualification of Sociology as one of the subject in B. A. The submission is that the requirement of Sociology as one of the subject is only with a view that a candidate should have knowledge of the subject of Sociology so that while interacting with the public at large, one may be able to take help from theoretical knowledge with regard to social problems. He also submits that law laid down by this Court as well as Apex Court also reiterates that a person having higher qualification cannot be denied appointment. 4. The opposite parties have filed counter-affidavit and in the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner was not having the Sociology as one of the subject at Graduate level and therefore, her appointment has been cancelled. His further submission is that the possession of higher qualification does not entitle the petitioner to be appointed as the requirement of the rule has not been complied with. His further submission is that the possession of higher qualification does not entitle the petitioner to be appointed as the requirement of the rule has not been complied with. The requirement under the rule is that the person should have passed the graduation with one of the subject namely Sociology. The petitioner was not having Sociology as one of the subject at graduate level and therefore, her appointment has been cancelled. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. The counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the possession of higher qualification will not debar the petitioner from being appointed. The petitioner has passed M. A. in Sociology and therefore, she is having Post Graduate Degree in Sociology and if she has not been passed graduation with Sociology as one of the subject then she cannot be debarred from being appointed as she is having Post Graduation Degree in Sociology. The requirement under Rule 8 of the U. P. Bal Vikas (Adhinasth Sewa Niyamawali), 1992 (hereinafter referred to as rule) for possessing the qualification of Sociology or Home Science or Poshan and Bal Vikas, as one of the subject at graduate level is only the minimum qualification to be possessed by a person and if any candidate possesses the higher qualification then prescription of minimum qualification will not stand in the way of appointment. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment in Firoj Alam Khan and others v. State of U. P. and another, 1987 All CJ 38,wherein in para 4 it has been held as under: " 4. Better or higher qualification make a person ineligible for a post with lesser qualification is a proposition which is against all norms and rationality. Construction of 1973 G. O. by Urdu Advisor relating to selection of teachers in Basic Schools referred to in paragraph 5 of counter-affidavit is ingenious. Protection to lesser qualified or with minimum qualification against danger of ousting with higher qualification has been confused as ineligibility. Consideration of candidates with L. T. in case of non-availability of C. T. or B. T. C. trained does not render a person with L. T. as ineligible. Minimum qualification does not and cannot exclude maximum. If intermediate is the qualification for a post then a person with B. A. or M. A. cannot be debarred from applying. Consideration of candidates with L. T. in case of non-availability of C. T. or B. T. C. trained does not render a person with L. T. as ineligible. Minimum qualification does not and cannot exclude maximum. If intermediate is the qualification for a post then a person with B. A. or M. A. cannot be debarred from applying. He may be screened out as sufficient number of persons with minimum qualifications are available on 1973 Government order but not otherwise. Therefore, the direction to terminate services of petitioner was wholly illegal. Apart from it how could order issued in December, 1985, affect the selection of petitioners which was held in September, 1975 and was otherwise valid. If rule of preference or protection was to be applied then it should have been before written test. Once interview etc. was held and petitioners were selected they acquired right to continue till their services were terminated in accordance with rules. " The next case in Writ Petition No. 36277 of 1998, Prakash Kumar v. U. P. Public Service Commission and another, this Court has held as under: " No doubt the eligibility clause refers to the possession of a Degree in one of the subject as Sociology. It is reported that at the relevant time in Allahabad University there was no discipline of Sociology for a Degree course. This aspect the respondents could not seriously dispute. In view of this we hold that the Post Graduate qualification in Sociology which the petitioner possesses fulfils the eligibility as prescribed and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the respondents to declare the result of the interview of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. " 8. In the above case also the petitioner was Post Graduate holder in Sociology whereas the requirement was for possessing a Degree in one of the subject as Sociology. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a judgment in a case in Jitendra Sharma v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. , through Station Director, N. A. P. S. , Narora, District Bulandshahr and another, 1998 (16) LCD 1034: 1998 (3) AWC 2187 . This Court in paras 4 and 5 has held, as under: " 4. This Court in paras 4 and 5 has held, as under: " 4. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that the qualification for Trainee was Intermediate, but the petitioner had suppressed the fact that after doing Intermediate the petitioner has done Diploma in electrical Engineering. 5. In my opinion the stand of the respondent is wholly arbitrary and illegal. I can understand that if a person has less than the minimum qualification he is not eligible for appointment, but I cannot understand this argument that the petitioner is over qualified. When the minimum qualification for the post of Trainee is Intermediate and there is no dispute that the petitioner has done Intermediate, then in my opinion he cannot be disqualified merely because he is over qualified, rather the respondent should have given weightage to the fact that the petitioner has got higher qualification. " 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next placed reliance upon a judgment in State of Haryana and others v. Abdul Ghaffar Khan and others, 2006 (6) AWC 5782 (SC), wherein also a similar problem cropped up as to whether a person possessing Diploma in Unani Dispenser or Up-Vidya from a recognized University/institution of Board which was the prescribed qualification for the post of Unani Dispenser under the Haryana Ayurvedic/homeopathic and Unani Technical Group (C) Service Rules, 1997, debarred the degree holder from appointment, in para 6 Apex Court has held as under: " We have perused the order passed by the High Court. As rightly pointed by the High Court and as per Haryana Ayurvedic/homeopathic and Unani Technical Group (C) Service Rules, 1997, they do not expressly exclude the degree in Unani Medicine and Surgery for the post of Unani Dispenser. Admittedly, the respective contesting respondents in these appeals possess required qualifications from a recognized University/institution or Board and are thus, in our opinion, eligible for appointment to the posts of Unani Dispenser. A close scrutiny of the advertisement issued does not anywhere stipulate the diploma as the required qualification. We, therefore, affirm the order passed by the High Court and direct the appellant-State of Haryana to appoint the respective respondents to the posts of Unani Dispenser within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order from this Court or on production of the same by the respective respondents herein whichever is earlier. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. " 11. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. " 11. Considering the above ratio of law laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court the requirement of possessing the qualification of Sociology as one of the subject at graduate level cannot be a disqualification for appointment on the post of Chief Supervisor when the petitioner is having the higher qualification of Post Graduate Degree in Sociology. The requirement under the rule is for possession of minimum qualification. The minimum qualification does not mean that the person who is having higher qualification cannot be appointed. The petitioner with the higher qualification must be presumed to serve the department better and handle the problems with more sincerity. The petitioner who was having Post Graduate Degree of Sociology could not have been denied appointment and the cancellation of her appointment is wholly bad in law in view of the law stated hereinabove. The impugned order dated 18. 5. 2005, cannot survive and is liable to be quashed. 12. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 18. 5. 2005 and a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner on the post of Chief Supervisor within a period of three months. .