JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioners, in these batch cases, hoped to be appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspectors. The post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors was lying vacant for a very long time. A writ application was filed and finally the State Government took a decision to begin the process of appointment of Motor Vehicle Inspectors. There were 59 vacant posts against which 183 applications were received. The advertisement for the said purpose was published in the year 2007. After scrutiny of the applications, 9 applications were found to be valid whereas the rest 174 applications were rejected. The rejection of 174 applications led to flood of writ applications being filed before this Court which are CWJC No. 2371 of 2010 and its analogous cases. On 18.2.2010, this Court while considering the writ applications has observed that "miniscule number of candidates who have been found to be called for the interview and the large scale finding of ineligibility, the Commission in all fairness proposes to re-scrutinize the applications including those nine who have been called for interview to take a fresh decision by a committee headed by the Secretary of the Commission and two Senior Officers from the Department of Transport and Personnel and then issue fresh interview calls to those who fulfil the conditions of the advertisement". It was also ordered that after the scrutiny, the Commission will hold the interviews of eligible candidates on 12th April, 2010. On re- scrutiny, only 20 candidates were found eligible. The interviews began on 12th April, 2010 as directed by this Court. 2. Being aggrieved by the re-scrutiny and the reasons for rejection, these cases have been filed challenging the reasons for rejecting the candidature of the persons who seek to be appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspectors. 3. I shall, therefore, first deal with the reasons of rejection of the individual cases and then give finding regarding the facts of the case. CWJC No. 6157 of 2010: 4. There are two petitioners in this case, namely, Sohan Choudhary and Rama Sis Manjhi. By Annexure-4, the petitioner was found ineligible on the ground that in the certificate showing his experience, the words repair, overhauling and inspection has not been mentioned. The experience certificate is contained in Annexure-3 which shows that the petitioner was employee of Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited since 11th January, 1999 as Junior Electrical Engineer. By Annexure-4, the petitioner was found ineligible on the ground that in the certificate showing his experience, the words repair, overhauling and inspection has not been mentioned. The experience certificate is contained in Annexure-3 which shows that the petitioner was employee of Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited since 11th January, 1999 as Junior Electrical Engineer. He joined in the maintenance wing on account of his being mechanical engineer with automobile elective paper. He was working with light & heavy vehicles both diesel and petrol. His work was with respect to all kinds of vehicles. 5. The case of Rama Sis Manjhi will be considered later. CWJC No. 5854 of 2010: 6. The petitioner was not found eligible for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector on the ground that the experience certificate does not mention the words repairing, overhauling and inspection. The certificates of the petitioner are annexed to the application vide Annexure-8 series. The experience certificate issued by the Mithila Motors shows that the petitioner was working as an Automobile Service Engineer for the last eight years. It is said that he has sufficient knowledge of engine maintenance. CWJC No. 5859 of 2010: 7. The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the experience certificate does not include the word repair which has been mentioned in the advertisement. In the experience certificate, as contained in Annexure-4, it is mentioned that he was engaged in maintenance, overhauling and inspection of heavy carriers including the light vehicles. The second certificate granted by Motorkraft indicates that he worked as Supervisor and was engaged in the maintenance, supervising and inspection. CWJC No. 5953 of 2010: 8. The application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that his experience certificate does not contain the words maintenance, overhauling and inspection whereas the second certificate granted by Mithila Motors does not contain the words maintenance and inspection which was required by the advertisement. The certificate bv Mithila Motors shows that the petitioner has experience in maintenance, overhauling and servicing whereas the certificate by Pebco Motors Limited shows that the petitioner was a Service Supervisor and has experience in maintenance work and managing of workshop activity for both diesel and petrol engines. CWJC No. 6056 of 2010: 9. The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the experience certificate does not contain the words repair and inspection. CWJC No. 6056 of 2010: 9. The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the experience certificate does not contain the words repair and inspection. On perusal of the experience certificate, it is apparent that the petitioner is involved in all types of mechanical as well as electrical works and overhauling of engine works in the shop. He was working as a Technical Supervisor in petrol and diesel light motor vehicles whereas the certificate granted by Enar Industries Enterprises shows that the petitioner was the Supervisor and involved in engine overhauling of TATA Motors, light and heavy commercial vehicles. CWJC No. 6062 of 2010: 10. The candidature of this petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the experience certificate does not contain the word repair. The experience certificate shows that the petitioner had experience of inspection, overhauling of light and heavy motor vehicles, diesel and petrol including goods and passengers. CWJC No. 6159 of 2010: 11. The reason for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is that the experience certificate does not mention the word overhauling. On perusal of the experience certificate issued by the Vishwakarma Engineering Works, it appears that the petitioner has the required qualification as the petitioner has experience in repair, maintenance and inspection of all types of motor vehicles, whereas the certificate issued by the Prakash Petrol indicates that the petitioner has experience in repair, maintenance and inspection of all types of motor vehicles. CWJC No. 5753 of 2010: 12. The petitioners candidature has been rejected for the following reasons: (a) the certificate granted by the India Automobiles does not contain the tact that the petitioner has experience in overhauling; (b) the certificate granted by Nalanda Engineering Works similarly does not contain the word overhauling; (c) the certificate granted by Karlo Automobiles (P) Limited does not contain the word repair, inspection and overhauling; and (d) the certificate granted by Jagdamba Auto Sales (P) Ltd. does not contain the word overhauling. 13. The petitioner has annexed a number of certificates which shows that he has experience in repair, overhauling, inspection and maintenance by Jagdamba Auto Sales (P) Ltd. working as a Supervisor by Maruti Automobiles, has experience in inspection, maintenance and has experience to work in repair and maintenance of suspension, steering, gear box, differential etc. 14. 13. The petitioner has annexed a number of certificates which shows that he has experience in repair, overhauling, inspection and maintenance by Jagdamba Auto Sales (P) Ltd. working as a Supervisor by Maruti Automobiles, has experience in inspection, maintenance and has experience to work in repair and maintenance of suspension, steering, gear box, differential etc. 14. In this case, I.A. No. 3365 of 2010 has been filed by one Partha Sarthi, praying that he should be permitted to intervene in this case. According to the intervenor, he is one of the successful candidates. It has been submitted on his behalf that apart from the interviews, the candidates should be tested for having knowledge of driving of light and heavy vehicles and the said driving test should be videographed. 15. In the intervention petition, it has been mentioned that Rule 5(c) of the Appointment Rules framed by the State Government clearly specify the necessity of driving license for the Motor Vehicle Inspectors. The said driving test should be made essentia! part of the selection process. 16. Undoubtedly, the Motor Vehicle Inspectors are required to know driving. However, it is upto the State Government to frame the required qualifications for the purpose of selection. If the respondent wishes to conduct a driving test because it has certain doubts regarding the statement in Prapatra-II, that the candidates can drive a light/heavy vehicle, it would be open for them to do so. 17. It is expected that the candidates would have the required qualification as they are required to produce driving license as per the advertisement. 18. The I.A. No. 3365 of 2010 is accordingly allowed in part. CWJC No. 5951 of 2010: 19. On re-scrutiny, it has been found that the petitioners experience certificate dealing with the heavy vehicles does not contain the word overhauling and inspection whereas the certificate granted by Lawly Sen & Co. does not indicate that the petitioner has experience in inspection. The certificates have been annexed as Annexure-3 series. The certificate granted by Lawly Sen & Co. indicates that the petitioner has worked as a Supervisor for the period from January, 1998 to February, 2000 and had underwent training and was responsible for repair, maintenance, such as engine overhauling, repair and supervising of all diesel and petrol Mahindra range of vehicles. The certificates have been annexed as Annexure-3 series. The certificate granted by Lawly Sen & Co. indicates that the petitioner has worked as a Supervisor for the period from January, 1998 to February, 2000 and had underwent training and was responsible for repair, maintenance, such as engine overhauling, repair and supervising of all diesel and petrol Mahindra range of vehicles. The certificate granted by Maurya Motors Limited indicates that the petitioner worked in the organization as a Workshop Trainee for the period March, 2000 to March, 2002 and had worked with TATA Heavy and Commercial vehicles and had training in repair and maintenance whereas the certificate of Maurya Motors Limited dated 4.2.2010 indicates that the petitioner underwent in the repair and maintenance work of engine and other major aggregates (repair, overhauling and inspection) of TATA Heavy Commercial vehicles. CWJC No. 6102 of 2010: 20. The petitioners candidature has been rejected on the ground that the experience certificate does not contain the word inspection. The certificate granted to him which is also annexed in this application, suggests that the petitioner had work experience in inspection, overhauling and supervising of Heavy and Light vehicles. CWJC No. 6209 of 2010: 21. On re-scrutiny, the petitioners application was rejected on the ground that the certificate granted by Karlo Automobiles (P) Ltd. does not show the type of work that the petitioner had done while he was working as Floor Supervisor in the firm. The certificace granted by Minta Engineering Workshop indicates that the petitioner was the Incharge of maintenance of trucks and buses and was involved in the preparation, maintenance and inspection of steering, differential, suspension, gear box etc. 22. In this case, perhaps the certificate which shows that the petitioner is working as an Floor Supervisor in the company, does not indicate that he had actively participated in repair, maintenance, inspection, supervising and electrical work etc. of Heavy and Light vehicles. The second certificate granted by Minta indicates that the petitioner has experience in repairing, overhauling and inspection. CWJC No. 6240 of 2010: 23. The candidature of the petitioner has been rejected as the experience certificate does not indicate that the petitioner had experience of inspection works. The experience certificate granted to him by Ajanta Automobiles indicates that the petitioner has experience in Light and Heavy vehicles and had worked for preparing, overhauling and supervision of such vehicle. Discussion and Order: 24. The candidature of the petitioner has been rejected as the experience certificate does not indicate that the petitioner had experience of inspection works. The experience certificate granted to him by Ajanta Automobiles indicates that the petitioner has experience in Light and Heavy vehicles and had worked for preparing, overhauling and supervision of such vehicle. Discussion and Order: 24. The details with respect to the facts of each of the petitioners as have been given above indicates the reasons why on re-scrutiny also, the cases of the petitioners had been rejected. 25. The facts are that an advertisement was published by the Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna in the daily newspaper by which applications were called for the appointment on the vacant posts of Motor Vehicle Inspectors. It is essential to refer to the qualifications and requirements given in the advertisement as the same has become the subject matter of interpretation before this Court. The candidates should have passed the matriculation examination with Science conducted by Bihar School Examination Board or by Central Board of Secondary Education or any other recognized Board/Council. The candidates should also have a certificate for diploma in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering granted by the institute recognized by the Bihar State Board of Technical Education or any other technical institute or AlCTE. The candidates were also required to have two years experience in case of Diploma in Automobile Engineering or five years in the case of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, whereas one year working experience was the requirement for the candidates who have Post Diploma in Automobile Engineering. The candidates would be required to have experience with working in Light and Heavy motor vehicles, these run by diesel and petrol (including passenger and transport vehicles). 26. The important fact which has become the centre point of the dispute is that the experience certificate required to be produced by the candidates should contain the certain criteria as required by the Advertisement. This Court is quoting only those parts of the Advertisement which are the subject matter of rejection of the candidature of the applicants by the reconstituted Committee of the Commission. This Court is quoting only those parts of the Advertisement which are the subject matter of rejection of the candidature of the applicants by the reconstituted Committee of the Commission. 4|J4Mi:- (i) fam RtiMq qftejr *rptf?l" srt 3«4IFjW T%5TT ^ $mH % m*1 H^ltl*lnM ¦qT %zq$ ¦%§ 3?fqT $ £u|l ^ $$H IT 3FT TRT3T Wfi «ftf hR*K ^t *i*i+ST T#5Tr ^ (ii) f^SR Ttm rr*-!f)c£| ftrerr tnfe *rr 3f^r f^# wt ^ ^ #*flr v%sn 3r# >?i "SSiii filW xV& % SRT f=Rt?T ^RT-T? ?i ?ri f%# d*Jil"^r -hsiPhjm^ £ srt Ppfa 3&F-T* ^ SPPT-TsT *IF*T ^# Sf*t ^ d^-i*iK ai^qf^r t^ ^ f^ > wn^Ti (^3) s^pT^-ftcafar wz ^ $ ws ^rr f?^ *fT2? grg^r wi itaH ?cjh % g^r 3f^RBtf?rVr ^ grr4 *f wsr^ ft, *f *R»r#, 3JN^1fefJ| ^ pR >OT f.T 3Fp?l 3JfsWklfH f >^RitrR^ * fc > z^ 3^ ^m *r ^ «M3^*" st*rn 3frert%rrf?r i^Ptofito ^ %r R^^iaR^r ^ f^ 1^ 3Fpr=r ^ ^ w efrrm ^m 3c^i%r t % ^# ^r?r, f?% frsm, hr) irt ^ ^%?5R ftara ^i^t ^ 3PR t^t ^#r ^ 3^g^^ 5F?r ^ $ # ^W-^PT^ 3raW ^RT *fRl 1^ 3lIr)R«+ri 31«r# 3R% 3FJ»^ ^t 3^flt f^Rl^- fM % * £aii4 % cngM^ Tr»PT-tr5r w ^r t^ ?t, u*ii«w^ ^T5fR ^ri mm-* % t& w?- w tl «IF # VFZ ferqT ^TcIT t t% 3fl(?l*fl«ll!i #1! SIT^T 3l«Tl«W ^t *1Kt ^t?^t ^ ^m t^c ? >cT #T ^f fT 3FpT £ qiFR *f ^qfRT W qjF «FT dFJHq SIFtT FRT ^nlwi 3F=rHq- SRnT-T? *f 3igM^ 9T^T qiiq? gn ^w j^w ft ^ ^ fo# # ^RT 3 > VT*? 3lt%H ^ TF% ^t ferfcr *f qr ^J^rr ^xRT3?f *fit gfe" q > ^PT 3)l «q* OTm-T=T ^FT ^fr fr qft f&iR ^ 3r«if$fer t^? fq^r Wq%l 3FfHq WT-"TJf =£t T^RT f%5HTH 3f RtJTfcT dfiq^T OT^T q >7% =ft 3TRT Rf^f (21. 9.2007) rT^T TFT ^t u!Tq#l 3FfTq ^ft P> 3rt«tt 3jr^r tj^t *jr: fcqr (l) £l!faj| ^nf^RT:-3f«T# ^t ^Umifatf, F?q > *fc? qTF^, *TRT W qTFqT ^ MR qi# qiFT ^q?TR % ttl HT^T qft #n R*iihh % Ryffcr 3n%^r-^ sort q^ qft 3ff^*T Rfq- (21.9.2007) rPfT 1RT qft ^#1 tu w&ti 3Fj5ifcT qrr 3p? 9.2007) rT^T TFT ^t u!Tq#l 3FfTq ^ft P> 3rt«tt 3jr^r tj^t *jr: fcqr (l) £l!faj| ^nf^RT:-3f«T# ^t ^Umifatf, F?q > *fc? qTF^, *TRT W qTFqT ^ MR qi# qiFT ^q?TR % ttl HT^T qft #n R*iihh % Ryffcr 3n%^r-^ sort q^ qft 3ff^*T Rfq- (21.9.2007) rPfT 1RT qft ^#1 tu w&ti 3Fj5ifcT qrr 3p? ^t^t F fqr ^RT frlR ^t VWi, dTPTlf Hif, 3R/rfcr fr q > vpwm^f 3)Msq* Ffti ^r^ f^ 3T«r¬ 3TT% flffWiT rll£to q >t «iqiyft *qq 3ff*iy-HiRid q >T ^r^r q^i ^5" ^m «lk«n{faxr1, F?^ TteT ^TF^T, MI^T TFT ^TF^T ^\ 3T«r«ft ^ ^5T ^ f%% fe^ iq" t, ?% H 4l(sl +il?l % F^T5R * ^rq- ^| ^I^RJI Hl{^ H% ^J7% ^ HrflKl*!^ ^T (^r) ^rf^t-drw^? ^r srfer fe# 3TTO1T % faq- ?W fer sqf%rT Rijfrd q > qR tfT fI%i ^ SH^lRch ^q- % ^q?«T Ffar "^rfF^ 3ftT feFt ^% sii^R1* 3m?ir qr ^i^Ri* ^tqf % ^t FRT ^llfF^ f^R% ^3H% ^foqf ^T ^RTT^r R , 31T*1 ^Pf W ^?1^T FT, ^ TTRTf^ 3JT*RFff^R ^ H^SM ^ dR^iq 1" The key words are "repair", "overhauling" and "inspection". 27 As stated above, the scrutiny indicates that the experience certificate of the petitioners have been rejected because according to the Committee, it does not fulfil the criteria prescribed in the advertisement, inasmuch as the certificates do not contain the facts regarding the prescribed criteria of having experience in repair, overhauling and inspection. The experience certificates, on the other hand, contain words such as having experience in maintenance of vehicles, experience in supervision and experience in inspection, having full knowledge with respect to working with different parts of light and heavy vehicles (such as gear box, differential, suspension, steering etc.). The objection of the Committee is that the experience certificate ought to have contained all the criteria as mentioned in the advertisement in order to enable the candidates to appear for the interview of the Motor Vehicles Inspector. 28. The Committee feels certain difficulty in holding that the use of the various criteria is inter-changeable and as such has refrained from interpreting the meaning of the words used in the advertisement as they are the criteria laid down in the advertisement and the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India known as the Bihar State Transport (Technical) Cadre Rules, 2003. Part-Ill of the Rules deals with the experience required by the incumbent for the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector. The Rule 5 reads as follows: 5. Eligibility.The eligibility criteria for candidate for direct recruitment in the cadre on the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector shall be following: (a) Educational Qualification. (i) Matriculate with science in the examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board or passed in equivalent examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education or any other recognized Board/Council. (ii) Diploma in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering in three years diploma course from an institution recognized by the Bihar State Board of Technical Education/Any other State Board of Technical Education/All India Council for Technical Education. (b) Experience.After obtaining diploma a candidate should have at least two years working experience in case of Diploma in Automobile Engineering and five years in case of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering of repair, overhauling and inspection in a large automobile engineering workshop registered under the Factories Act which undertakes repairing of both light motor vehicles, heavy goods and passenger vehicle fitted with petrol and diesel engine. For candidates having Post-Diploma in Automobile Engineering one year of working experience shall be essential. (c) Other.(i) The candidate must have a valid Driving Licence Motor Cycle heavy goods and passenger vehicle. 29. The main idea behind the experience certificate is to get candidates who have knowledge with respect to the working mechanism of all types of vehicles. They are not being appointed as mechanics but they must have the expertise in the technical knowhow of maintenance, repair, overhauling and supervision of heavy and light vehicles. This aspect would also be obvious by the nature of the duties of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors. 30. In some cases, the objection is that the word repair has not been mentioned in the experience certificate rather it has been said that the candidates have experience in maintenance of the vehicles in question. The meaning of the word repair according to the Oxford dictionary is to restore what is broken, damaged or torn to good condition. The word maintenance means to keep a building, machine etc. in good condition by checking or repairing it regularly. Blacks dictionary has defined maintenance in different ways in different contexts as for example, Maintenance is to provide sustenance or to maintain a suit. The word maintenance means to keep a building, machine etc. in good condition by checking or repairing it regularly. Blacks dictionary has defined maintenance in different ways in different contexts as for example, Maintenance is to provide sustenance or to maintain a suit. In the present context, it may be read as keep in good order; keep in proper condition; keep in repair; keep up; provide for rebuild; repair; replace. The Law Lexicon on the other hand has found the words maintain and repair to be interchangeable. The distinction between words maintenance and repair, in the context of construction is virtually without any difference, for example maintaining a bridge one would have to keep it in good repair and by repairing it is also maintained. This Court could go on by referring to the meaning of the word repair and maintenance by referring to various meanings given in different dictionaries. The conclusion is that the word repair and maintenance is inter-changeable for the reason that maintenance of any machine, building, bridge, would necessarily mean and include repair of the building, bridge or machine. In order to keep anything in good and workable condition, it requires that it should be maintained and for the purposes of maintaining a particular thing, it would necessarily mean that it has to be repaired so that it is kept in good and running condition. Therefore, the objection raised by the Committee on this count is untenable and all the candidates who come within these criteria should be permitted to appear in the interview. 31. The next reason for rejecting the candidature is that the Committee found that there is some confusion with respect to the word Nirikshan. The Max-Ford Excellent Learners Dictionary (Hindi to English and English to Hindi) indicates that supervision means inspection,dekhbhal/nirishnan therefore, if the word supervision is used instead of "nirishnan" it cannot be possibly mean that the candidates do not have the experience as required. As per Chambers dictionary, the meaning of the word supervise is to inspect, control and the supervisor is a person who oversees the inspectors, the thing which has to be supervised. Similarly Oxford dictionary defines inspector "as a person who checks that everything is in order. The act of looking closely, "specially to check that everything is as it should be". An Inspector is a person whose job is to visit schools, factory, etc. Similarly Oxford dictionary defines inspector "as a person who checks that everything is in order. The act of looking closely, "specially to check that everything is as it should be". An Inspector is a person whose job is to visit schools, factory, etc. to check the rules are obeyed and the "Standards are acceptable". Thus to say that the word inspection used or the word supervision used in the experience certificates is not within the criteria as prescribed by the advertisement would amount to defeating the purpose of laying down the criteria. Each word may have a different meaning in a different context. For example in inspection of a school, it would require that the person conducting the inspection is to see that the rules and regulations are being followed by the school authorities, whereas the inspection of a motor vehicle which would require that a person who is inspecting or supervising the said inspection is satisfied that the vehicle or the office in which the vehicle is lodged or the procedural aspect for declaration that a particular vehicle is fit to be on the road would require the person to have knowledge of the vehicle itself and to see that it is in good condition and that all the relevant documents required for the possession of a motor vehicle are in order. The work of an Inspector or a Supervisor is the same. The only difference lies in the fact that the words are used in accordance to the context with the job performed. This Court therefore, finds that in those cases where the Committee has held that inspection/supervision does not meet the criteria in the advertisement is unfounded. 32. Some of the candidates have been rejected on the ground that their experience certificates contained the word overhauling. It contains the words supervision, inspection, maintenance and having experience in repair of different parts of the machine both light and heavy vehicles including passenger and goods vehicles. The question therefore, arises that what is meant by overhauling. The Oxford dictionary defines overhauling as examination of a machine or system, including doing repairs on it or making changes to it, to examine every part of a machine, system, etc. and make any necessary changes or repairs. The meaning therefore, indicates that the person is required to repair and replace any part of a machine which is damaged. The Oxford dictionary defines overhauling as examination of a machine or system, including doing repairs on it or making changes to it, to examine every part of a machine, system, etc. and make any necessary changes or repairs. The meaning therefore, indicates that the person is required to repair and replace any part of a machine which is damaged. For the purposes of overhauling a machine, it is required that the person concerned should have knowledge with respect to the working of the machine and the utilization of the different parts and their functions. As the meaning indicates it would require maintenance of the different parts of the machine and replacement of the parts if they are irreparable i.e. the changing the parts of the machine completely. Law Lexicon defines overhauling as "pull to pieces for inspection, examine the state of a machine etc. Similarly this Court finds that if the experience certificate shows that the candidates have experience in maintenance, inspection, supervision and can deal with different parts of the machine, he would necessarily have the qualification of overhauling a machine. Such candidates should be allowed to appear for the interview. 33. The experience certificate shows that the petitioners have the basic qualification. The interview conducted by the experts would be the final criteria for deciding whether in fact they are capable of repair, inspection and overhauling of a machine. I would like to refer to the duties of a Motor Vehicles Inspector. 34. The Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) provide for a Motor Vehicles Inspector. The work of Motor Vehicles Inspector is defined under the Rules aforesaid. Rule 40 empowers a Motor Vehicles Inspector to register vehicles, if so authorized by the Registering Authority. Rule 51 envisages that Motor Vehicles Inspector may issue certificate of fitness subject to the control of the Registering Authority. Therefore, the Motor Vehicles Inspector has to have experience and knowledge with respect to the mechanisms of vehicles and as such there is need to have the capacity to inspect and decipher whether a particular vehicle is fit to be on the road. Rule 215 of the Rules envisage that Motor Vehicles Inspector will have the power to inspect any vehicle which has met with a fatal accident. Rule 215 of the Rules envisage that Motor Vehicles Inspector will have the power to inspect any vehicle which has met with a fatal accident. This power can only be effectively performed if a person has knowledge of the different parts of a vehicle, so that he may ascertain the damage and cause of the accident. Therefore, the main duties of the Motor Vehicles Inspector involve inspection and supervision with knowledge with respect to working of vehicle in question. Any qualification prescribed has to have nexus with the duties to be performed. It is not the duty of the Motor Vehicles Inspector to work as a mechanic and actually repair, or for that matter overhaul the engines of the vehicles, physically rather his duties require the Motor Vehicles Inspector to know the mechanism of the vehicles concerned in order that he can perform his duties effectively. 35. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to certain cases on this issue. As referred to the case of ONicill V/s. Brown reported in (1961)1 All. E.R. 571, although this case refers to the requirement of Regulation 73(1) of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1955. It deals with what is the meaning of maintenance. The facts were that a lorry and the trailer which it drew including the tow-bar a dics to the trailer were each of good construction and in good repair but the person who coupled them together failed to ensure that the coupling was properly engaged. The Court held that the regulation required that the vehicle and trailer to be not merely in good repair but in efficient working order; as they were improperly joined together they were not in such order, and on this ground the offence charged was established. While dealing with this aspect, it was argued that the word maintenance is really dealing with repair i.e. providing the vehicles and their parts should be kept in good repair. The other side contended that maintenance should be given a narrow meaning. The Court held that the word maintenance should be given a wider meaning and would include keeping in good repair. Therefore, the rejection on the ground that the word maintenance is used in the experience certificate whereas the requirement is experience in repair is unwarranted. 36. The other side contended that maintenance should be given a narrow meaning. The Court held that the word maintenance should be given a wider meaning and would include keeping in good repair. Therefore, the rejection on the ground that the word maintenance is used in the experience certificate whereas the requirement is experience in repair is unwarranted. 36. In this context, counsel for the petitioner also referred to the case of the State of U.P. V/s. Devi Dayal Singh reported in (2000)3 SCC 5 . The question was with respect to levy of tolls of a bridge to meet the expenses incurred on maintenance and repair of the bridge. The Supreme Court held that there is no distinction between maintenance and repair as for maintaining a bridge one would have to keep it in good repair and as such held that both the words have to be used interchangeable. 37. In view of the discussions held above, this Court finds that the objection of the Committee as constituted by the judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 2371 of 2010 and its analogous cases while examining the documents submitted by the petitioners and particularly the documents relating to the experience certificate are unwarranted and have to be overruled by this Court. It is further directed that these petitioners should be permitted to face the interview on the date fixed by the Commission and they should be held at par and judged alongwith the 20 candidates who have already faced the interview on 12.4.2010. The results should be declared at one go so that the seniority of these petitioners would not be affected by the fact that the interview was held on a later date. 38. These writ applications are allowed in the terms mentioned aforesaid.