JUDGMENT Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal, J.: - Chandigarh Administration has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the order dated 02.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Original Application filed by respondents No.1 and 2 was allowed and they were held to be eligible for consideration for appointment on the post of Music Master. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned order. 3. In the present case, undisputedly 13 posts of Music Masters/Mistresses were advertised by the Education Department, Chandigarh vide advertisement dated 22.8.2007 mentioning the following qualifications for the said post:- “(A)(i) Degree of Bachelor of Education Degree from an institute recognized by NCTE with at least 50% marks in aggregate with music as teaching subject or its equivalent. OR (ii) Degree of Graduate in any subject from a recognized University with at least 50% marks in aggregate. (B) Degree in music from recognized institute with at least 50% marks in aggregate.” 4. It is also undisputed position that the aforesaid qualifications have been prescribed for the post of Music Master/Mistress in the Chandigarh Education Service (School Cadre) (Group-C) Recruitment Rules, 1991 as amended by Chandigarh Education Service (School Cadre) (Group-C) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2007. It is also admitted position that respondents No.1 and 2 possess the qualifications prescribed in Clause (A)(ii) and (B) of the Rules. However, the petitioners held them ineligible for the post of Music Master on the ground that they were not possessing the Degree of Bachelor of Education from an institute recognized by NCTE. Thereupon, both the respondents filed Original Application before the Tribunal which has been allowed by the impugned order. 5. Before the Tribunal, an argument was raised that the alternative qualifications prescribed in Clause (A)(ii) and (B) of the Rules were only to come into play when the candidates possessing the first set of qualifications prescribed in Clause (A)(i) were not available. This contention was rejected by the Tribunal while observing as under:- “There is nothing in both the documentations aforementioned to indicate that the alternative academic eligibility conditions were to come into play only when candidates answering the first set of eligibility qualification were not available. This contention was rejected by the Tribunal while observing as under:- “There is nothing in both the documentations aforementioned to indicate that the alternative academic eligibility conditions were to come into play only when candidates answering the first set of eligibility qualification were not available. It is to state the obvious that the rule-formulation has to be very specific on that point and we cannot read into the rules what is not specifically provided therein. On that precise premise, we have no reservations in negativing the plea raised on behalf of the respondents. It was for the rule-making authority to provide in the rule-formulation itself that the provision regarding the alternative set of qualifications would come to play only if candidates possessing the first set of academic qualifications were not available. In the absence of any indication to that effect in the rules, the plea raised on behalf of the respondents is not sustainable.” 6. Similar contention has been raised before this Court. It has been argued that the candidates who were not possessing the Degree of Bachelor of Education were not considered for appointment on the post in question on the principle that those candidates could have been considered only in case of non-availability of the candidates possessing the Degree of Bachelor of Education. During the course of arguments, learned counsel admitted that under the Rules there is no such provision that the candidates possessing the essential qualifications prescribed in Clause (A)(ii) and (B) will only be considered in case the candidates possessing the essential qualifications prescribed in Clause (A)(i) are not available. In absence of any such rule, the petitioners were not justified to straight away ignore respondents No.1 and 2, who were possessing the essential qualifications prescribed in Clause (A)(ii) and (B) of the Rules. The qualifications mentioned in the Rules, which have been exactly reproduced in the advertisement, prescribed alternatively two set of qualifications which make a candidate eligible for appointment to the post of Music Masters/Mistresses. If a candidate is possessing either of the qualifications prescribed in Clause (A)(ii) and (B) of the Rules, he has a legal right and is, thus, eligible for consideration on the post in question. If a candidate is possessing either of the qualifications prescribed in Clause (A)(ii) and (B) of the Rules, he has a legal right and is, thus, eligible for consideration on the post in question. Learned counsel could not cite any contrary rules or judgment which lays down that if two set of alternative qualifications are prescribed for appointment on a post, then the candidates possessing the second set of qualifications will only be considered if the candidates possessing first set of qualifications are not available. 7. As far as the observations made by the learned Tribunal with regard to creation of additional posts to accommodate respondents No.1 and 2 is concerned, it has been further observed that it is for the petitioners to proceed with the matter in accordance with principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. Actually no specific direction has been issued to the petitioners to create the additional posts. Everything has been left open to the petitioners to proceed with the matter in accordance with principles of natural justice, equity and fair play while considering the claim of respondents No.1 and 2 for appointment on the post in question. Therefore, we do not find any reason to comment on those observations. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal which requires any interference in the writ jurisdiction. 9. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------