JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. The facts and the question involved in these appeals are common. Hence, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The appellant is Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. The appellant issued advertisement dated 09.08.2012 calling for applications for filling up the posts of Assistant Review Officer (Accounts) and Assistant Accountant in Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. For both these posts, according to the appellant, apart from qualification of B.Com. applicants were to possess ‘O’ Level Certificate in Computer operation. The writ petitioners in the writ petitions, from which the present three appeals arise, were aspirants to posts of Assistant Review Officer (Accounts) or Assistant Accountant in Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. They did not possess the qualification of ‘O’ Level Certificate in computer operation. They, however, appeared to contend that the qualification which they possessed in computer operation is equal or higher. 3. The learned Single Judge, in fact, by an interim order directed the constitution of a committee to report regarding the qualification possessed by the writ petitioners. The report was filed. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge has finally disposed of the writ petitions by directing the constitution of a committee and certain directions were also given. It is appropriate that we extract paragraphs 9, 10 & 11 of the impugned judgment. “9. In view thereof, this Court finds that since the intention of the Government was to see whether each candidates has computer knowledge and computer operating skills and if the candidates have undergone such course which gives them this ability and the course is recognized either by the State Government or by the University, then the Public Service Commission shall constitute a Committee which will comprise one representative of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and another representative of the Uttarakhand Technical Education Board and one representative appointed by the Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Government of Uttarakhand who would be an expert in the field of computer science, preferably from the recognized Institute in Uttarakhand such as Indian Institute of Technology. 10. 10. The three members Committee shall examine the computer skill certificates of each of the petitioners and if such certificates are found to be recognized by the University or Government of India body or State Government then for such candidates a computer operation skill test be conducted, and if they are found to be up to the mark in the operation of computer and are judged to be skilled in computer, they be accordingly marked and recommendations made. 11. Since the entire result of the selection process is withheld, let the Committee be constituted immediately and the examination of the certificates be done by the Committee as early as possible but not later than eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.” It is feeling aggrieved that the appellant are before us. 4. We have heard Shri B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Anil Dabral and Shri Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel for the private respondents and Shri H.M. Bhatia, learned counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the appellant would point out that having regard to the qualifications which are fixed under the Rules for the posts in question which are reiterated in the advertisement issued by the appellant, which is recruiting agency, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable. He would submit that as far as the qualification of ‘O’ Level Certificate in computer operation is concerned, it is not open to the High Court to have issued direction to constitute a committee when neither the rule nor the advertisement is challenged. Therefore, the qualification which is fixed as per the Rule and reiterated in the advertisement must be taken as it is and those persons who possessed the qualification alone become eligible to be considered by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners would submit that this is a case where, as noted by the learned Single Judge, institutes which hand over ‘O’ Level Certificate in computer operation is not functioning in the State of Uttarakhand in sufficient number and the resultant position is that the people are disabled from getting ‘O’ Level Certificate in computer operation, but the fact remains that there is question of higher or equivalent qualification. 6. 6. Shri H.M. Bhatia, learned Counsel for the State would bring to our notice judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1990) 3 SCC 655 (District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and another versus M. Tripura Sundari Devi), wherein, inter alia, the Apex Court held as under:- “6. It must further be realized by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable. No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. We are afraid that the Tribunal lost sight of this fact.” 7. We, incidentally, notice that in that case the actual qualification which was advertised was second class in M.A. and the respondent before the Apex Court had third class degree in M.A. Shri H.M. Bhatia, learned counsel for the State also brought to our notice judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2010) 15 SCC 596 (Jyoti K.K. and others versus Kerala Public Service Commission and others). We will refer to the said judgment later on in this judgment. 8. We notice from the judgment that the learned Single Judge, no doubt, took note of the fact that DOEACC Society which issues ‘O Level Certificate in computer operation is not having sufficient number of institutions or organizations in the State of Uttarakhand. We further notice that the Court acknowledged that it is not an expert in the field and further the Court proceeded to appoint a committee. Further we also notice paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment, which is as follows:- “7. The insistence on ‘O’ Level certificates issued by the DOEACC society in the present case does not appear to be reasonable, as this Court has been informed that there are not sufficient number of institutions in the State of Uttarakhand granting such Certificates. In fact, out of 145 only 59 candidates were having such certificates. The insistence on ‘O’ Level certificates issued by the DOEACC society in the present case does not appear to be reasonable, as this Court has been informed that there are not sufficient number of institutions in the State of Uttarakhand granting such Certificates. In fact, out of 145 only 59 candidates were having such certificates. By and large, the candidates who reside in hill areas have been ousted from the competition, as they do not have such certificates for the simple reason that the area to which they belong, DOEACC society does not have such institutions.” Thereafter the learned Single Judge proceeded to consider the report of the committee appointed under the interim order and it is noted that the report is also not very helpful to the writ petitioners on account of absence of qualification. 9. When the qualification which has been advertised by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission as a recruiting agency is clear, namely, that the candidates must possess ‘O’ Level Certificate in computer operation and further there is no dispute even by the writ petitioners that the ‘O’ Level Certificate is one issued by the particular Society and there is no qualification which is recognized as equivalent or higher qualification either in the rules or in the advertisement, we are at a loss to understand how the learned Single Judge could have proceeded to undertake the exercise of constituting a committee whether by virtue of the interim order or at any rate under the final directions. It is to be noted that there is no challenge either against the rules which provide the qualification or to the advertisement even by the writ petitioners. In other words, the writ petitioners accept the qualification which they must possess for being considered. In short, with eyes wide open they participated in the selection process knowing fully well that they must possess the qualification of ‘O’ Level Certificate in computer operation to be qualified for the posts in question. In such circumstances, in our view it is not open to the Court to consider any qualification other than ‘O’ Level Certificate in computer operation which probably may be possessed by not many. The fact that few may possess qualification of ‘O’ Level Certificate in computer operation cannot be a reason to dilute the terms of the advertisement issued by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. The fact that few may possess qualification of ‘O’ Level Certificate in computer operation cannot be a reason to dilute the terms of the advertisement issued by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. It would amount to fraud on the public as it is not a matter between the candidate and recruiting agency alone. As far as the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2010) 15 SCC 596 is concerned, that was the case where, no doubt, the Court countenanced the higher qualification, but it is also significant to notice Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1956, which reads as follows :- “10.(a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognized by executive orders or standing orders of Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the Special Rules and such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post.” In this context the Apex Court held, inter alia, as follows :- “7. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The High Court is also justified in stating that the higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for that post in order to attract that part of the rule to the effect that such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. If a person has acquired higher qualifications in the same Faculty, such qualifications can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In this case it may not be necessary to seek far. 8. Under the relevant Rules, for the post of Assistant Engineer, degree in Electrical Engineering of Kerala University or other equivalent qualification recognised or equivalent thereto has been prescribed. For a higher post when a direct recruitment has to be held, the qualification that has to be obtained, obviously gives an indication that such qualification is definitely higher qualification than what is prescribed for the lower post, namely, the post of Sub-Engineer. For a higher post when a direct recruitment has to be held, the qualification that has to be obtained, obviously gives an indication that such qualification is definitely higher qualification than what is prescribed for the lower post, namely, the post of Sub-Engineer. In that view of the matter the qualification of degree in Electrical Engineering presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification of diploma in that subject prescribed for the post, shall be considered to be sufficient for that post. 9. In the event the government is of the view that only diploma holders should have applied to post of Sub-Engineers but not all those who possess higher qualifications, either this rule should have excluded in respect of candidates who possess higher qualifications or the position should have been made clear that degree holder shall not be eligible to apply for such post. When that position is not clear but on the other hand the Rules do not disqualify per se the holders of higher qualifications in the same Faculty, it becomes clear that the rule could be understood in an appropriate manner as stated above. In that view of the matter the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. In this case we are not concerned with the question whether all those who possess such qualifications could have applied or not. When statutory rules have been published and those rules are applicable, it presupposes that everyone concerned with such appointments will be aware of such rules or make himself aware of the rules before making appropriate applications. The High Court, therefore, is not justified in holding that recruitment of the appellants would amount to fraud on the public.” 10. In this case, there is no warrant either in the rules or in the terms of the advertisement which would have justified a probe being made into the qualification of the petitioners to ascertain whether that qualification possessed by them suffices for appointment under the Rules and the advertisement. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge erred in the direction which was issued. The appeals succeed and the judgment will stand set aside. The writ petitions will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 11. All the applications pending in these appeals also stand dismissed.