JUDGMENT Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved, as they have not been called for interview for appointment to the post of Driver-cum-Pump Operator-cum-Fireman-A. 3. A perusal of the record shows that Nuclear Power Corporation of India has issued an advertisement for making selection to various posts, including the post in question. The advertisement lays down the qualifications to be possessed by the applicant. The qualification required for the post has been mentioned in the advertisement, which reads as under: - ^^,l,llh vFkok blds led{k] ,oa Hkkjh okgu pykus dk oS/k Mªkbfoax ykblsalA ¼jkT; vfXu'keu izf'k{k.k dsanz ls lVhZfQdsV dkslZ djus okys O;fDr;ksa vFkok vfXu'keu midj.k tSls vfXu'kkedkas vkfn dk Kku j[kus okys O;fDRk;ksa dks ojh;rk nh tk,xhA ½ rhu o"kZ dk vuqHko visf{kr gSA vfXu'keu lsok laxBu@j{kk lsok esa vuqHko j[kus okyksa dks ojh;rk nh tk,xhA vaxzsth dk Kku okaNuh; gSA** 4. According to the respondents, the driving licence for the heavy vehicle has been issued to petitioner no.1 on 12.7.2013, and for petitioner no.2, it has been issued on 2.9.2013, and therefore, they do not have three years' experience of driving heavy motor vehicles, and it is for this reason that they have not been called for interview. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that only requirement is of having three years' driving experience, and it is not necessary that such experience be that of driving of a heavy motor vehicle. 5. The submission advanced on behalf of petitioners is not liable to be sustained. The driving licence, which is required in the instant case, is that of a heavy motor vehicle. The requirement of possessing three years' experience has to be read in context of the clause itself, and therefore, such experience has to be of driving heavy motor vehicle. In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that none of the petitioners have driving experience of three years. In such circumstances, if they have not been called for interview, no illegality could be shown. 6. The writ petition lacks merit, and is dismissed.