JUDGMENT : Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents who are the petitioners in the writ petition from which these appeals arise. 2. W.A.No.1874 of 2012 is filed by two candidates included in the rank list which was challenged in the writ petition that led to the impugned judgment. They plead that they are adversely affected by the judgment impugned, though they were not parties to the writ petition. They have been granted leave to appeal against the judgment in the writ petition. 3. W.A.No.2193 of 2012 is by the Kerala Public Service Commission challenging the judgment in so far as the principles attempted to be settled through the impugned judgment are pleaded as erroneous. 4. The Public Service Commission notified vacancies for selection to the category of Operator in the Kerala Water Authority, hereinafter referred to as 'KWA'. The service in the KWA is governed by the provisions of the Kerala Public Health Engineering Service Rules in so far as State service categories are concerned and Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service Rules which relate to the subordinate service. Those rules have been adopted by the KWA. 5. The qualification prescribed for the post in question is as follows: "(1) Pass in S.S.L.C Examination or equivalent qualification. (2) National Trade Certificate in the Trade of Mechanic (Motor Vehicle/Electrician)" The PSC notified the aforesaid qualification in its notification. In the selection process, it also considered candidates who had Diploma or Degree in some branches of Engineering. When the short list was prepared, a writ petition was filed challenging the action of PSC. After the publication of the rank list, the writ petition was amended, however without impleading all the selected candidates, in particular, those who have instituted W.A. No. 1874 of 2012. The learned single Judge concluded that Diploma or Degree cannot be treated as qualifications which are higher qualifications to the trade certificate which was prescribed and there was no way for the PSC to go by a principle of equivalence in bringing persons also within the field of choice. The writ petition was so ordered however directing that appointments already made would not be disturbed and that the declaration would affect the appointments to be made in future from the rank list. 6. The writ petition was so ordered however directing that appointments already made would not be disturbed and that the declaration would affect the appointments to be made in future from the rank list. 6. At the outset, we may note that it is trite law that without impleading necessary parties to a writ petition, such a question could not have been decided, particularly, when rights of persons in W.A. No. 1874 of 2012 would stand abridged without being heard. The appellants in that case are included in the rank list. Their identity was certain. Their eligibility to be appointed was found by the PSC and they had therefore the vested right to be offered appointments from the rank list. So much so, the impugned judgment cannot, in any manner, affect their right to be appointed in terms of the rank list. The judgment impugned in W.A. No. 1874 of 2012 does not affect their such eligibility and the said judgment shall not be operated in any manner adverse to the interest of the appellants in W.A. No. 1874 of 2012. It is so ordered. 7. Onto the larger question raised by the PSC and the appellants in W.A. No. 1874 of 2012, vis-a-vis, the contentions of the writ petitioners who succeeded before the learned single Judge, we need to note that the different categories in subordinate service stand with prescribed qualifications of National Trade Certificate, Diploma and Degree. Coming to the State service, we see that the different categories under that service stand with qualifications of Diploma and Degree being prescribed. We also see a provision whereby, there is proportionate advancement by way of promotion or by transfer appointments from lower categories to higher categories until those in the subordinate service reach the State service. Taking into consideration the structure of the hierarchy in both the services together and the different qualifications prescribed, we cannot, but, apply the precedent laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Jyoti K.K. & Ors. v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. [JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 85] which laid down, among other things, that if a person has acquired higher qualifications in the same faculty, such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. [JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 85] which laid down, among other things, that if a person has acquired higher qualifications in the same faculty, such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. We are not persuaded to apply the ratio of the decisions in Janardhanan K & Others v. State of Kerala & Others [2008(3) KHC 299] and Abdul Salam v. Executive Officer [ 2011(3) KLT 204 ] since the issues dealt with therein are not appropriate to be applied to the case in hand, while the precedential value of Jyoti (supra) runs to support the case of the appellants. 8. We may also at this juncture refer to the affidavit filed on behalf of the additional 38th respondent before the learned single Judge. The Director of Technical Education was required during the course of consideration of the writ petition to file an affidavit on issues involved in the case. That direction was issued after suo motu impleading the Director of Technical Education as an additional respondent. The Deputy Director, Curriculum Development Centre filed a detailed affidavit before the learned single Judge on behalf of the Director stating, among other things, as follows: "............................. 2. This Honourable Court on 14th January 2011, directed the additional 38th respondent who was suo motu impleaded in the writ petition(C) to file an affidavit on the issues involved in the case. 3. Issues in the writ petition pursuant to the interim order, were placed before the Equivalence Committee meeting held on 03.02.2011 at the Directorate of Technical Education, Thiruvananthapuram. The Committee includes:- a. Prof. C. Sam, Senior Joint Director (Engineering College Stream), Directorate of Technical Education. b. Sri. K.P. Salim Kumar, Senior Joint Director (Polytechnic Stream) Directorate of Technical Education. c. Sri. N.K. Rajan, Joint Director, Curriculum Development Centre, Kalamassery. d. Sri. N. Madhu, Deputy Director (Placement & Training) Directorate of Technical Education. e. Sri. K.P. Ajaya Kumar, Deputy Director (General), Directorate of Technical Education f. Sri. Saji T., Deputy Director, Curriculum Development Centre, Kalamassery g. Sri. L Rajendran, Project Officer, Directorate of Technical Education. The prescribed qualifications for the post is National Trade Certificate in Mechanic (Motor Vehicle/Electrician). d. Sri. N. Madhu, Deputy Director (Placement & Training) Directorate of Technical Education. e. Sri. K.P. Ajaya Kumar, Deputy Director (General), Directorate of Technical Education f. Sri. Saji T., Deputy Director, Curriculum Development Centre, Kalamassery g. Sri. L Rajendran, Project Officer, Directorate of Technical Education. The prescribed qualifications for the post is National Trade Certificate in Mechanic (Motor Vehicle/Electrician). This Honourable Court has directed the Director of Technical Education to give expert opinion whether the alternate qualifications suggested pre-suppose the acquisition of the prescribed qualification, National Trade Certificate in Mechanic (motor Vehicle/Electrician). The committee discussed the issue in the Academic perspective and came to the following conclusion considering the Academic Level of these courses and the nature of duties of the Operator at Water Authority. The following decisions were made regarding the acceptance of qualifications. a. Diploma/Degree in Electrical Engineering of Electrical and Electronics Engineering are Higher qualification which pre-supposes the acquisition of National Trade Certificate in Mechanic (Electrician). b. Diploma/Degree in Mechanical Engineering or Automobile Engineering are Higher qualification which pre-supposes the acquisition of National Trade Certificate in Mechanic (Motor Vehicle). c. National Trade Certificate in Diesel Mechanic can be considered equivalent to the National Trade Certificate in Mechanic (Motor Vehicle) for appointment as Operator in Water Authority. d. National Trade Certificate in Industrial Electrician can be considered equivalent to the National Trade Certificate in Mechanic (Electrician) for appointment as Operator in Water Authority. 4. In view of the above decision taken by the Committee, it is humbly submitted that, the higher qualifications mentioned in (a) and (b) above pre-suppose the acquisition of basic qualification prescribed for the post. The qualifications mentioned in (c) and (d) are equivalent to qualifications for the same post....................................." The aforesaid is the view of a competent body dealing with technical education. The expertise of those persons who constituted the committee which decided the matter is indisputable. Under such circumstances, we do not find our way to disagree with the stand taken by the Director of Technical Education with the assistance of the committee, after having adverted to the relevant facts and factors. In this way also, we do not find our way to sustain the judgment of the learned single Judge. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, these writ appeals succeed. In this way also, we do not find our way to sustain the judgment of the learned single Judge. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, these writ appeals succeed. In the result, these writ appeals are allowed setting aside the impugned judgment, however, preserving the appointment of any among the writ petitioners, if already made.