JUDGMENT K.M. Jospeh, C.J. (Oral) Appellants are the writ petitioners. The advertisement is issued calling for Applications for filing-up various posts, including Instructor Mechanic (Motor Mechanic and Driving), which is the post with which we are concerned in this Appeal. 2. Appellants are the certificate holders, which is one of the alternate qualifications; the other alternate qualification being diploma. Appellants produced alongwith their applications Light Motor Vehicle Licenses. It so transpired that after issuance of the advertisement, a corrigendum was issued. By the corrigendum, in Clause (3) it was provided that it is sufficient that the candidate selected produces the license within a period of two years from the date of appointment. The said condition came under attack in a writ petition and a learned Single Judge of this Court, who incidentally is one of us (V.K. Bist, J) held as follows: “Since in all these petitions there involve common set of facts and law, therefore, for the sake of convenience, all these petitions have been consolidated and are being decided by a common judgment. Writ petition no.775 of 2010 (S/S) shall be the leading petition. 2. On 20.06.2010 an advertisement was published by Director Employment & Training, Uttarakhand inviting applications for the posts of Vocational Instructor in different trades in Government Industrial Training Institute (for short I.T.I.) of Uttarakhand. Following essential qualification was mentioned in the brochure of application form:- (a) Educational Qualification- Intermediate pass but having Science and Mathematics in High School. (b) Technical Qualification- National Vocational Certificate with 60% marks in concerned trade/National apprenticeship. (c) One year C.T.I. certificate (Craftsman Training of Instructor). (d) Five year experience (including training period). 3. Again a corrigendum was issued on 22.07.2010 by which condition regarding experience certificate in prescribed proforma alongwith Tin Number was removed with a clarification that after final selection, selected candidates will be required to furnish experience certificate. Further, essential condition of driving license was also removed and it was provided that after selection, selected candidates will be required to supply driving license within two years from the date of appointment. 4. Some of the petitioners were appointed Prashikshan Mitras in the I.T.I.s whereas others were appointed Daily Wage Instructors. These petitioners are working in different I.T.I.s for last several years. Other petitioners are not working anywhere. All the petitioners applied in pursuance of aforesaid advertisement. They appeared in the written examination held on 14.08.2010. 4. Some of the petitioners were appointed Prashikshan Mitras in the I.T.I.s whereas others were appointed Daily Wage Instructors. These petitioners are working in different I.T.I.s for last several years. Other petitioners are not working anywhere. All the petitioners applied in pursuance of aforesaid advertisement. They appeared in the written examination held on 14.08.2010. Select list was declared on 27.08.2010 in which petitioners’ name did not figure. Most of the selected candidates did not possess C.T.I. certificate but were considered under Rule 8(5)(a) of The Uttarakhand State Industrial Training Institute (Instructors), Service Rules, 2003 and amended NOTE of Rule 8(5)(a) of The Uttarakhand State Industrial Training Institute (Instructors) Service (Amendment) Rules, 2007. Petitioners name did not find place in the select list. Aggrieved, they filed these petitions. 5. Writ petition no.775 of 2010 has been filed for quashing the select list dated 28.08.2010 (27.08.2010) so far it includes diploma holders without C.T.I. certificate in the same. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to prepare fresh select list in order of merit on the basis of written examination only from amongst C.T.I. certificate holders together with diploma holders by excluding non-C.T.I. certificate holders. Writ Petition no.783 of 2003 has been filed challenging the corrigendum dated 22.07.2010, advertisement dated 21.08.2010 and result dated 27.08.2010. Further prayer has been made in the writ petition for direction to respondent nos.1 & 2 to withdraw the advertisement dated 20.06.2010, 22.07.2010 and 21.08.2010 and to invite fresh advertisement. In writ petition no. 542 of 2010 advertisement dated 20.06.2010 and corrigendum dated 08.07.2010 is under challenge. Further prayer has been made in this writ petition for a direction to the respondent no.1 to adopt the same procedure which is being adopted in respect of Shiksha Mitra in Education Department and to provide regular status which is being provided to the Shiksha Mitras and also pay the same honorarium to the petitioners. In writ petition no.658 of 2010 and 664 of 2010 advertisement dated 20.06.2010 and corrigendum 22.07.2010 are under challenge. Further prayer has been made for direction to the respondent nos.1 & 2 to take final decision in the matter of petitioners. It has also been prayed that respondents be directed to complete appointment process of daily wager Instructors in the department in the light of letter no.DIU/105/Anudeshak Niyukti/001/2001/8846-74 dt.19/11/2001. Further prayer has been made for direction to the respondent nos.1 & 2 to take final decision in the matter of petitioners. It has also been prayed that respondents be directed to complete appointment process of daily wager Instructors in the department in the light of letter no.DIU/105/Anudeshak Niyukti/001/2001/8846-74 dt.19/11/2001. In writ petition no.806 of 2010 advertisement dated 20.06.2010 and examination in pursuance of the same held on 14.08.2010 is under challenge. Writ petition no.829 of 2010 has been filed for quashing the entire selection process pursuant to advertisement dated 20.06.2010, corrigendum dated 22.07.2010, advertisement dated 21.08.2010 and result dated 27.08.2010. Further prayer has been made for direction to the respondents to withdraw these advertisements. Writ petition no.837 of 2010 has been filed for quashing the entire selection process pursuant to advertisement dated 20.06.2010 corrigendum dated 22.07.2010, advertisement dated 21.08.2010 and result dated 27.08.2010. Further prayer has been made for direction to the respondents to withdraw these advertisements. Writ petition no.843 of 2010 has been filed for quashing the entire result for the post of I.T.I. Instructor pursuant to advertisement dated 30.07.2010. Further prayer has been made to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Instructor (Mechanic & Refrigerator/A.C.). Writ petition nos.893 of 2010 has been filed for setting aside the selection list dated 28.08.2010 (27.08.2010), so far as it includes diploma holders without C.T.I. certificate. Writ petition no.905 of 2010 has been filed for quashing the entire selection process pursuant to which examination dated 14.08.2010 was held. Further prayer has been made directing the respondents to make fresh selection process, first by giving appointment to C.T.I. holders. Writ petition no.964 of 2010 has been filed for quashing the corrigendum dated 22.07.2010 and advertisement dated 21.08.2010 as well as the entire selection process pursuant to Employment Notice No.1/104/2010. Further prayer has been made for direction to the respondents to initiate the examination afresh. Writ petition no.985 of 2010 has been filed for setting aside the selection list dated 28.08.2010. Further prayer has been made directing the respondents not to issue the appointment letters to the selected candidates till the petitioners are given selection. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Mr. Writ petition no.985 of 2010 has been filed for setting aside the selection list dated 28.08.2010. Further prayer has been made directing the respondents not to issue the appointment letters to the selected candidates till the petitioners are given selection. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Mr. A.N. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that in terms of Rule 8(4) and (5) of the Rules in so far they deal with Engineering Trade from serial no.1 to 15 as well as serial no.21 in respect of vacancies which had been advertised prescribed C.T.I. certificate is one of the essential qualification over and above diploma course. Therefore, diploma holders having not possessed with C.T.I. certificate, being essential qualification, were outside the field of eligibility in terms of main enactment and Rule 8(4) and Rule 8(5) of the Rules and to that extent beginning from acceptance of application forms, permitting diploma holders without C.T.I. certificate to participate in written examination and preparing combined merit list on the basis of combined written examination was contrary to Rule 8(4) and 8(5) of the Rules and was void-ab-initio and illegal. In support of this argument he relied on the judgment of Allahabad High Court passed in writ petition no.1822 of 2004- Upendra Narain Singh & others vs. State of U.P. & Another. Mr. Tripathi submitted that aforesaid judgment was passed by Allahabad High Court setting aside the amendment dated 09.12.2003 deleting essential qualification of C.T.I. was held to be violative of Constitutional scheme and legislative power as well as in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as constitutional scheme in terms of Article 73 of the Constitution read with Entries 65 and 66 of List I namely takes over Entry 25 of List III. Recruitment Rules were bound to include essential qualification of C.T.I. which was higher training certificate. He further submitted that in any case for granting benefit of NOTE of Rule 8(5)(a) of the Rules, separate recruitment process should have been done for non C.T.I. certificate holders but in the present case the respondents have committed illegality by holding common written examination and also by declaring common merit list. By doing so respondents committed serious constitutional violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by treating unequal as equal. By doing so respondents committed serious constitutional violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by treating unequal as equal. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that only 49 C.T.I. certificate holders had applied and there are more than 400 vacancies. In these circumstances the respondents should have considered C.T.I. certificate holders for appointment and only thereafter other case could be considered. Mr. A.N. Tripathi, Senior Advocate drew my attention to the principle of law laid down in (1994)4 Supreme Court Cases 401, A 1999 Supreme Court 2894, (2002)6 JT 204, A 2002 Supreme Court 3675, JT 2003(2) Supreme Court 35, A 2003 Supreme Court 3371, (2002)6 JT (Supreme Court) 204, AIR 1955 Supreme Court 549, AIR 1993 Supreme Court 796, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1119, AIR 1994 Supreme Court 2166, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1612, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1, AIR 1950 Supreme. Court 134, AIR 1987 SC 537 , AIR 1993 477, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 200. 8. Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that some petitioners were appointed Prashikshan Mitra/Daily Wage employee after adopting due selection process. In their case vacancies were notified and their names were forwarded by the concerned Employment Exchange. A committee was constituted and they were interviewed and only thereafter were appointed. He submitted that such petitioners, who are 105 in number, are working in the department for last 10 to 16 years and in view of these facts their case for regularization should be considered and only thereafter appointment through direct recruitment should be made. He further submitted that relaxation given by the corrigendum 22.07.2010 is illegal. He also submitted that since vacancies pertain to the year 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006 also, selection to those posts should be made as per old Rules. He also submitted that while making selection several irregularities have also been committed by the respondents as person completing course in the year 2008 could not be selected as at the time of selection he did not have required experience, person of 18 years of age has also been selected. Similarly one person having qualification of different trade was permitted to appear in different trade. He argued that in view of these facts entire selection deserves to be set aside. In support of his arguments Mr. Similarly one person having qualification of different trade was permitted to appear in different trade. He argued that in view of these facts entire selection deserves to be set aside. In support of his arguments Mr. S.S. Yadav, relied on the judgment reported in (1990)2 Supreme Court Cases 668, (1990)2 Supreme Court Cases, 669, (1990)2 Supreme Court Cases, 673, (1990)3 Supreme Court Cases, 157, (1990)3 Supreme Court Cases 168, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1119, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1124, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 404, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 405, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 412, (2001)10 Supreme Court Cases 50, (2001)10 Supreme Court Cases 51, (2001)10 Supreme Court Cases 57, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 215, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 227, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 175, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 176, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 526, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 531, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1684, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1691, (2009)2 Supreme Court Cases 479 and (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 486. 9. Other advocates adopted the submission of Mr. A.N. Tripathi, Senior Advocate. 10. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. U.K. Uniyal, appearing for respondent no.3 contended that Rule 5(1) of the Service Rules clearly provides that a qualifying examination shall be held for the purpose of recruitment. Rule 5(1) no way provides any relaxation to any candidate for the qualification possessed by him. But Rule 8(5) (as amended) of the rules provides that in the event of non-availability of C.T.I. certificate holders, the other eligible candidates not having C.T.I. certificate, could be appointed subject to the condition that such successful candidates shall have to obtain the said C.T.I. certificate within four years of the appointment at their own cost. By considering this Rule the respondents have permitted the non-C.T.I. certificate holders to appear in the examination and prepared a combined select list. He further submitted that the petitioners subjected to the said advertisement at their own volition without raising any protest and now when they have not been selected they are challenging the said selection. According to him the petitioners should not be permitted to challenge the select list after they have played their inning. Mr. Uniyal also submitted that issue before the Allahabad High Court in writ petition no.1822 of 2004 was the outcome of amendment brought by State of U.P. whereby condition of possession of C.T.I. certificate being necessary qualification was deleted from the Rules. Mr. Uniyal also submitted that issue before the Allahabad High Court in writ petition no.1822 of 2004 was the outcome of amendment brought by State of U.P. whereby condition of possession of C.T.I. certificate being necessary qualification was deleted from the Rules. But State of Uttarakhand has not amended the Rule to that extent and C.T.I. still continues to be a necessary qualification but in the backdrop of the fact that number of C.T.I. holders are very less, in the instant case the number of posts are about 700, the applications from C.T.I. holders for the said recruitment were just 49. Therefore, benefit of Rule 8(5)(a) of the Rules has rightly been given to non C.T.I. holders. He prayed that petitions be dismissed with heavy cost. 11. In 2003, Uttarakhand State Industrial Training Institute (Instructors) Service Rules, 2003 (for short the Rules) were framed. Rule 8(5) of 2003 Rules provided following essential qualification for the post of Vocational Instructors (Engineering Trade). (i) Intermediate pass but having Science and Mathematics in High School. (ii) National Vocational Certificate with 60% marks in concerned trade/National apprenticeship. (iii) One year C.T.I. certificate. (iv) Five year experience. Note: If the candidates having essential qualification of C.T.I. certificate are not available at the time of recruitment, other qualified candidates may be appointed provided such candidates complete C.T.I./T.T.T.I. Training within two years from appointment at their own cost. In the year 2007 by way of amendment in the NOTE of Rule 8(5)(a) of the Rules two years period was substituted as four years in the following manner: Note: If the candidates, having essential qualification of C.T.I. certificate, are not available at the time of recruitment, other qualified candidates may be appointed. Provided that such candidates shall have to successfully complete the C.T.I/T.T.T.I. Training within four years from appointment at the cost of their own. During this training period, the employee shall continue to receive the basic pay, in otherwise case the employee so appointed shall be removed from service. 12. Provided that such candidates shall have to successfully complete the C.T.I/T.T.T.I. Training within four years from appointment at the cost of their own. During this training period, the employee shall continue to receive the basic pay, in otherwise case the employee so appointed shall be removed from service. 12. It is not disputed that relevant Rule does not provide any relaxation in respect of essential qualification but Rule 8(5) (as amended) of the Rules provides that if candidates, having essential qualification of C.T.I. certificate, are not available at the time of recruitment, other qualified candidates may be appointed, provided that such candidates shall have to successfully complete the C.T.I./T.T.T.I. training within four years from appointment at the cost of their own. 13. State of Uttarakhand is a new State. During last few years it has appointed non-C.T.I. certificate holders as Prashikshan Mitra/Daily wager to meet the crisis precipitated on account of large number of vacant posts. Therefore, consideration of candidature of non-C.T.I. certificate holders cannot be said as unreasonable. In this regard it is also pertinent to mention that only 49 candidates applied who possess C.T.I. certificate. Thus, the respondents have not committed any illegality in considering the candidature of such candidates who were having other essential qualification except C.T.I. certificate. In my view ‘NOTE’ of Rule 8(5) (a) of the Rules does not relax the essential qualification of ‘C.T.I. Certificate’ in any manner. It simply provides relaxation for a period of four years in the situation where C.T.I. certificate holders are not available. Judgement of Allahabad High Court cited by the counsel for the petitioners does not help them. 14. However, the respondents, in making final selection, have committed an illegality by considering the candidature of C.T.I. certificate holders as well as all those who do not possess C.T.I. certificate together. Thus, they treated unequal as equal. Candidature of both types of candidates cannot be considered together. As per relevant Rule, the candidates having C.T.I. certificate have a right to be considered first and only thereafter, if vacancies are unfulfilled, other candidates not having C.T.I. certificate can be considered. 15. As far as Clause 3 of the corrigendum dated 22.07.2010 is concerned, the same is illegal because relaxation in essential condition of driving licence for a period of two years from the date of appointment cannot be granted. Same is in violation of Service Rules. 15. As far as Clause 3 of the corrigendum dated 22.07.2010 is concerned, the same is illegal because relaxation in essential condition of driving licence for a period of two years from the date of appointment cannot be granted. Same is in violation of Service Rules. An employee is supposed to have minimum required qualification at the time of his recruitment. 16. Another argument of learned counsel for the petitioners, that the petitioners who are working in the department for last several years should be considered for regularization and only thereafter the selection process for direct recruitment should proceed further, is misconceived in view of the fact that Service Rules do not provide for the same. It is for the State Government to consider their demand for framing suitable scheme for Prashikshan Mitra/Daily Wagers, who have served the department for more than 10 years. 17. I have gone through the principle of law laid down in the cases cited by Mr. A.N. Tripathi and I find that the same are of no help to the petitioners in view of the fact that requirement of C.T.I. certificate has been kept as necessary qualification in the relevant Rule. In 1 (1994)4 S.C.C. 401 , Ajai Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P (Supra) the Supreme Court considered the regulation of admission to postgraduate medical courses by Medical Council of India providing for reservation for SC/ST etc. and found that the Medical Council Act does not empower the council to regulate or prescribe qualifications for admission to postgraduate courses. However, by virtue of Entry 66 of List I, which overrides Entry 25 of List III, the States are denuded of all and every power to determine and coordinate the standards of higher education, which must necessarily take in, regulating the admission to these courses. The regulations do not provide for any reservation and the regulations being a species of delegated legislation bind all the institutions imparting medial education. In AIR 1999-2894, Preeti Srivastava vs. State of U.P. (Supra) it was held that universities must necessarily be guided by the standards under Section 70(1) of the Medical Council of India if their degrees and diplomas are to be recognized. It was found that Medical Council regulations have statutory force and mandatory. The Act contemplates Medical Council of India as an expert body to control the minimum standards of education. It was found that Medical Council regulations have statutory force and mandatory. The Act contemplates Medical Council of India as an expert body to control the minimum standards of education. This view was reiterated in AIR 2003 SC 3371 (Harish Verma and others vs. Ajai Srivastava and another). In AIR 2002 SC 3675 , Union of India vs. Shah Govardha Kobra Teachers College (Supra) the Supreme Court upheld the legislative competence of the Central Government to enact National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 and held that the opinion of the National Council, which is an expert body should not be likely tinkered with. The High Court’ order setting aside de-recognition was quashed. In JT 2003(2) SC 35, St. Johns Teachers Training Institute vs. Regional Director, National Council of Teacher Education and another (Supra) the same view was followed with regard to recognition for the courses by the National Council for Teachers Education and regulations were held an ultra vires the Act. In AIR 1955 SC, 549 (5 Judges Constitution Bench)-Execution of power under article 73 of the Constitution is co-extensive with the legislative field enumerated in Union List of the Constitution and even without any Parliamentary Act, the Central Government has all the power extending to all the matters to which the Parliament has the power to make laws. In AIR 1993 SC, 796 judicious and illegal select list can be cancelled and recruitment of opportunity of hearing to members of selection committee is not needed. In AIR 2002 SC, 1119 on account of cancellation of entire selection, issuance of show cause notice to individual selectee is not necessary. Cancellation of entire selection is permissible when there are wide spread illegalities and irregularities affecting result of selection were there. In AIR 1994 SC, 2166 process of selection stinking ‘conceived in fraud, delivered in deceit’ entire selection is liable to be set aside. In AIR 1991 SC, 1612 (5 Judges Constitution Bench) inclusion of a candidate in the merit list does not confer any right to be selected. In AIR 1994 SC, 2166 process of selection stinking ‘conceived in fraud, delivered in deceit’ entire selection is liable to be set aside. In AIR 1991 SC, 1612 (5 Judges Constitution Bench) inclusion of a candidate in the merit list does not confer any right to be selected. In AIR 1974 SC, 1 (5 Judges Constitution Bench) Jammu and Kashmir Engineering Gazetted Service Recruitment Rules 1970-Classification of Assistant Engineer between Degree Holders and diploma holders-Rule does not violate Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India since constitutional Code of equality and equal opportunity mean for persons who fall substantially within the same class, degree holders and diploma holders are different identified classes which was based upon higher and lower educational qualification. In AIR 1950 SC 134 (6 Judges Bench) Marginal note cannot be referred to for the purposes of construing the main Status nor can be title of Chapter can be a used to restrict plain term of an enactment. In AIR 1987 SC, 537 it was held that High Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue writ or direction where the Government/authorities had failed to exercise or wrongly exercised discretion conferred upon it by Statute or has exercised such discretion malafiedly or irrelevant consideration thereby frustrating the object of the Act and in any of such cases where the authority had failed to discharge its duty, the High Court has the power to pass order or give direction which the Government or its authorities should have passed or given had they properly had lawfully exercised their discretion. In AIR 1993, 477 India Sawhahi vs. Union of India (9 Judges Constitution Bench), Para 114, the meaning and content of expression-‘preference’ must be read down to mean and equitable apportionment of vacancies reserved for backward class between poorer section (more backward) and other selection (other backward). In AIR 1984 SC, 200 in respect of notified area or notified route application for permit by the State Road Transport Under taking shall be granted to the exclusion of any other operator in terms of Section 47 (1-H) because expression ‘preference’ otherwise means prior right, advantage, precedence etc. 18. Judgments cited by Mr. S.S. Yadav are not relevant to present controversy. Petitioners do not get any help from these judgments. 18. Judgments cited by Mr. S.S. Yadav are not relevant to present controversy. Petitioners do not get any help from these judgments. Points involved in the judgments cited by him are given herein under: In (1990)2 SCC 669 it was held that date of attaining the minimum age has to be specified and determinate date and cannot be the date of preparation of select list. In (1990) 3 SCC 157 it was held that where advertisement issued inviting application for direct recruitment to a category of posts, and the advertisement expressly states that selection shall be made in accordance with the existing Rules or government orders, and if it further indicates the extent of reservations in favour of various categories, the selection of candidates in such a case must be made in accordance with the then existing Rules and government orders. In AIR 2002 SC 1119 it was held that if the mischief played in no wide spread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, in such cases it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show cause notices to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. In AIR 1990 SC, 405 it was held that selection process is to be completed in accordance with law as it stood at its commencement. In (2001) 10 SCC, 51 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced. In AIR 1969 SC 215 Supreme Court dealt with the appointment of Commission of Inquiry. In AIR 1971 SC 175 Supreme Court held that where various allegations of improper motive and malafidies by a senior member of Indian Administrative Service against other senior officers and State Government, dismissal of writ petition in-limine is not justified. In AIR 1991 SC 526 the Supreme Court held that validity of Rules framed under Article 309 cannot be challenged on the ground of malafide. In AIR 2000 SC 1684 the Supreme Court dealt the controversy relating to premature retirement. In (2009) 2 SCC 479 the Supreme Court held that a person does not acquire a legal right to be appointed only because his name appears in the select list. 19. In AIR 2000 SC 1684 the Supreme Court dealt the controversy relating to premature retirement. In (2009) 2 SCC 479 the Supreme Court held that a person does not acquire a legal right to be appointed only because his name appears in the select list. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, all writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner:- (i) The respondents shall prepare a merit list of Vocational Instructors (Engineering Trade) afresh by considering the candidature of those candidates who are having C.T.I. certificate. (ii) In case total advertised vacancies are not filled, the respondents then shall consider the candidature of other candidates who are not having C.T.I. certificate. (iii) The representations of the petitioners, who are continuously working in the department without any break for last several years, shall be decided at the earliest and till the disposal of their representation they shall not be discontinued and shall be paid salary. (iv) The petitioners shall be at liberty to move another representation before the competent authority regarding irregularities committed in the examination and in case such representation is received by the competent authority, the same shall be decided expeditiously. (v) Clause 3 of the corrigendum dated 22.07.2010 is quashed. 20. No order as to costs. Let certified copy of this order be placed in connected writ petitions.” 3. Also, the condition was quashed. 4. Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, who has filed the Appeal fairly concedes that the Appeal against the judgment has been dismissed. To continue with the narrative, appellants did not produce the Heavy Motor Vehicle Licences alongwith their Applications. In the light of the corrigendum being quashed by this Court, as noticed, the writ petition filed by the appellants, alongwith other writ petitions, came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment by directing that all those who possessed Heavy Motor Vehicle Licence as on the date of advertisement will be considered for selection. It is feeling aggrieved by the said judgment that the appellants are before us. 5. We heard Sri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri P.C. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri Vinay Kumar, would contend that the learned Single Judge has not considered the questions, which are posed in the writ petition filed by the appellants. 5. We heard Sri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri P.C. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri Vinay Kumar, would contend that the learned Single Judge has not considered the questions, which are posed in the writ petition filed by the appellants. He would submit that as far as non-production of heavy motor vehicle licences by the appellants is concerned, it does not have any fatal consequences. This was for the reason that there are two sets of qualifications contemplated under the advertisement, a candidate may either be a diploma holder or a certificate holder. He would submit that the requirement as to the possession of licences, be it a Heavy Motor Vehicle Licensee or a Light Motor Vehicle Licensee, comes under the nomenclature ‘preferential qualifications’ and, that too, in regard to those, who have qualification of Diploma. He would submit that under the advertisement, as far as the certificate holders, like the appellants, are concerned, the possession of Heavy Motor Vehicle Licence is not prescribed as a preferential qualification. He would also submit that, therefore, holding of the Heavy Motor Vehicle Licence is not an essential qualification. From this, he would straightway point out that the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, as we have noted, would not stand in the way of the appellants being considered. In fact, it is pointed out that one of the appellants has secured first rank but his candidature is not being considered for the sole reason that he does not have a Heavy Motor Vehicle License. Appellants also have a case that even in the place, where the words “Heavy Motor Vehicle License” find expression in the advertisement, it is clear that it is only related to Diploma Holders and not Certificate Holders. This aspect has not been gone in by the learned Single Judge. He would also point out that there is no requirement of possession of license, be it a Heavy Motor Vehicle License or Light Motor Vehicle License, in the Rule, under which, the advertisement has been issued. This aspect has not been gone in by the learned Single Judge. He would also point out that there is no requirement of possession of license, be it a Heavy Motor Vehicle License or Light Motor Vehicle License, in the Rule, under which, the advertisement has been issued. He would further contend that the possession of Heavy Motor Vehicle License has no relevance or bearing in regard to the actual job to be performed by the Instructor, as the post, though is one of Instructor Mechanic (Motor Vehicle and Driving), it is essentially more connected with the mechanical aspects of the vehicle. 7. Per contra, learned standing counsel Sri P.C. Bisht would submit that a perusal of the advertisement would show that possession of a Light Motor Vehicle License and Heavy Motor Vehicle License is required even for those candidates, who have certificates. It is also submitted that the appellants have not challenged the advertisement. 8. We must understand, whether there is any requirement of possession of valid license of light motor vehicle or heavy motor vehicle in regard to a candidate, who has qualification of certificate and, thereafter, if there is such a requirement, we must consider the impact of the appellants not challenging the advertisement. Considering the first point first, we may advert to the English translation of the advertisement, which is made available to us. The same reads as follows. “Necessary Educational, Technical, Training and Experience eligibility relating appointment on different posts. For the posts mentioned at Serial No. 1 to 15:- 1. Essential Eligibility:- (Certificate Holder) (A) Educational eligibility- Intermediate passed, but had passed his High School with Science and Mathematic subjects. (B) Technical eligibility- Minimum 60 percent marks in concerned Trade with National Vocational Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate. (C) C.T.I. Certificate of one year. (D) Experience- Experience of minimum five years including the training period, which has been obtained with salary from Sate Govt./Public Undertaking/renowned Private Department/Institution. Experience certificate will be admissible in prescribed proforma ‘D’ and ‘E’. 2. Preferential:- (A) “B” Certificate of N.C.C./Minimum two years service in Territorial Army. 3. Essential Eligibility- (Diploma Holder) 12 (A) Educational eligibility- Intermediate passed, but had passed his high School with Science and Mathematic subjects. (B) Technical eligibility- Three years Diploma with minimum 60 percent marks in the concerned Branch of Engineering from recognized Institution and C.T.I. Certificate of one year/one year Training of T.T.T.I. 4. 3. Essential Eligibility- (Diploma Holder) 12 (A) Educational eligibility- Intermediate passed, but had passed his high School with Science and Mathematic subjects. (B) Technical eligibility- Three years Diploma with minimum 60 percent marks in the concerned Branch of Engineering from recognized Institution and C.T.I. Certificate of one year/one year Training of T.T.T.I. 4. Preferential:- (A) “B” Certificate of N.C.C./Minimum two years service in Territorial Army. Suggestive description in respect of concerned Branches of Diploma are as under:- A Fitter/Turner/Machinist/ Advance Module Plant Processing Diploma in Mechanical/ Production Engineering B Instrument Mecha. Diploma in Instrumentation. C Refrigeration and Conditioner Diploma in Refrigeration Engineering. D Mechanic Motor Vehicle and Driving Diploma in Automobile Engineering. Valid License of Light & Heavy Motor Vehicle is necessary for all candidates diploma & certificate holders D Welder/Plumber/Draftsmen Mechanic Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. E Draftsmen Civil/Surveyor Diploma in Civil Engineering. F Painter General Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. G Electrician/Wiremen Diploma in Electrical Engineering. H Information Technology Diploma in Information Technology” 9. From perusal of the same, the following conclusions are inevitable. For the posts at Serial Nos. 1 to 15, which include the post of Instructor Mechanic (Motor Vehicle & Driving), there are two sets of qualifications. The first set consists of those, who are certificate holders. For them, essential eligibility conditions are prescribed. Possession of a Heavy Motor Vehicle is conspicuous by its absence among the essential qualification. Thereafter, under the Head ‘Preferential qualification’ and in Serial No. 2, we notice, preferential qualification is mentioned, namely, ‘B’ Certificate of NCC/minimum two years’ service in territorial Army. If we pass on to consider essential qualification, the advertisement provides for another set of qualification, namely, diploma holders. Therein, it is provided, as we notice, under the heading ‘Technical Eligibility’, three years’ diploma with minimum 60% of marks in the concerned branch of Engineering from recognized Institution and CTI Certificate of one year/one year training of TTTI. Under the category of diploma holder also, IV begins with the heading ‘Preferential’. Understandably for diploma holders also, the very same preferential qualification as provided for the certificate holders, namely, ‘B’ Certificate of NCC / Minimum two years’ service in territorial Army is provided for diploma holder. It is, thereafter, that the words ‘suggestive description in respect of the concerned branch of diploma holder’ are mentioned. Understandably for diploma holders also, the very same preferential qualification as provided for the certificate holders, namely, ‘B’ Certificate of NCC / Minimum two years’ service in territorial Army is provided for diploma holder. It is, thereafter, that the words ‘suggestive description in respect of the concerned branch of diploma holder’ are mentioned. It is under ‘D’ that the post of Mechanic Motor Vehicle and Driving is mentioned and against the same, firstly, the words ‘Diploma in Automobile Engineering’ are mentioned. Thereafter, the words used are ‘Valid License of Light & Heavy Motor Vehicle is necessary for all candidates”. From this, we understand the framers of the advertisement intended as follows: If a person is a diploma holder, the diploma must be obtained in the concerned branch. That is clear from Clause 3 (B). The suggestive description, which deals with different posts and courses are intended to convey the idea that the diploma must be obtained by the candidate in the respective branch and for various courses/posts, the diploma in the concerned subject/branch is indicated in the right hand column. It is, thereafter, that the words ‘Valid License of Light & Heavy Motor Vehicle is necessary for all candidates” are mentioned in regard to the post of Instructor Mechanic (Motor Vehicle and Driving). From this, it becomes clear that the words “Suggestive descriptions in respect of concerned Branches of Diploma” are fulfilled by referring to diploma in Automobile Engineering in regard to the post in question. It is only in respect of the said post, however, we notice that the advertisement proceeded to provide for possession of Valid License of Light and Heavy Motor Vehicle. It is made clear that this condition is required for all candidates. The words “for all candidates” cannot be rendered superfluous or otiose. It is intended to convey the meaning that across the spectrum of qualifications, namely, diploma holders and certificate holders, the candidates must possess a valid license of light and heavy motor vehicle. In fact, appellants have produced Light Motor Vehicle Licenses along with the Applications. If there is no need for license for a certificate holder, it remains unexplained as to why the appellants produced the Light Motor Vehicle Licenses. Appellants could not produce the Heavy Motor Vehicle Licenses for the simple reason that they did not have the Heavy Motor Vehicle License. If there is no need for license for a certificate holder, it remains unexplained as to why the appellants produced the Light Motor Vehicle Licenses. Appellants could not produce the Heavy Motor Vehicle Licenses for the simple reason that they did not have the Heavy Motor Vehicle License. But the fact that they do not possess Heavy Motor Vehicle License would be fatal to them in view of the prescription of possession of such license. It is true that scanning of the Rules, which were made available, does not suggest that the Rule makers included possession of the said license amongst qualifications, but the fact remains unchallenged that the appellants did not challenge the advertisement. Even if a document is void, it is trite law that the party cannot ignore the document and he must put the matter in issue by challenging it, and on not having done it and in fact partially submitting it by production of the Light Motor Vehicle Licences, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants to turn around and challenge the prescription of the condition of Heavy Motor Vehicle License. The Appeal is without merit and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.