JUDGMENT AND ORDER : By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the notification under No. F.11(38-4)-RECTT/TPSC/2014(Vol-I) dated 18.05.2015 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) whereby the respondent No. 4 [Sri Debyendu Das] and the respondent No. 5 [Shri Chakrapani Das] have been recommended for appointment to the post of Inspector, Motor Vehicles, Group-C(Non-Gazetted) under the Transport Department, Govt. of Tripura against two vacant posts reserved for SC category candidates. The petitioners do belong to SC Community and there is no dispute as regards their caste status. Following the requisition from the Transport Department, Tripura Public Service Commission, the respondent No. 3, published the advertisement No. 09/2014, (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), inviting application in the prescribed format from the eligible candidates for selection in various posts including the post of Inspector, Motor Vehicle, 10 (ten) temporary posts of Inspector, Motor Vehicle Group-C (Non-Gazetted) under the Transport Department, Govt. of Tripura in the scale of pay 5,310-24,000/-, PB-II with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,400/- were declared to be filled up. Out of those posts two posts, as stated, two posts for SC, three posts for ST and 5 posts for UR were ear-marked. 2. The present controversy relates to the selection of two posts of Inspector, Motor Vehicles ear-marked for SC candidates. For those posts, the following essential and other qualifications were provided by the said advertisement (Annexure-1) as follows: Education and other qualifications: “Essentials:- (i) Passed Madhyamik or equivalent examination of any recognized University/Board (ii) Passed 3(three) years Diploma Course in Automobile Engineering/Mechanical Engineering from a recognized Institution (iii) Should have knowledge in M.V. Act, 1989 (iv) Should have knowledge in Bengali. Desirable: Be a holder of Driving License for all types of motor vehicles.” 3. The basic qualifications as it appears from the said advertisement are three-year Diploma course in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering from a recognized institution, with knowledge in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Requirement Rules for the post of Inspector, Motor Vehicles had been published by the Notification dated 16.06.1989 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) also provides the same educational and other qualifications required for the post of Inspector, Motor Vehicle under the Transport Department. Rule-7 of the Recruitment Rules for the post of the Inspector, Motor Vehicle is extracted for reference: “7. Rule-7 of the Recruitment Rules for the post of the Inspector, Motor Vehicle is extracted for reference: “7. Educational and other qualifications require for direct recruits: “Essentials:- (i) Passed Madhyamik or equivalent examination of any recognized University/Board (ii) Passed 3(three) years Diploma Course in Automobile Engineering/Mechanical Engineering from a recognized Institution (iii) Should have knowledge in M.V. Act, 1989 (iv) Should have knowledge in Bengali. Desirable: Be a holder of Driving License for all types of motor vehicles.” 4. There is no controversy that the petitioners have all the qualifications as per the Recruitment Rules. The petitioner No. 1 passed the Madhyamic examination from Tripura Board Secondary Education in the year 1999 and thereafter passed the 3-year Diploma in Automobile Engineering from Polytechnic Institution in the year 2007. That apart, he has good knowledge in Motor Vehicles Act and in Bengali. The petitioner No. 1 has also driving licence for driving light motor vehicles. The petitioner No. 2 passed Madhyamic Examination from Tripura Board of Secondary Education in the year 1996. Thereafter he passed 3-year Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from the Polytechnic Institution in the year 2002. That apart, he has good knowledge in Motor Vehicles Act and in Bengali. The petitioner No. 2 has also driving licence for driving light motor vehicles. On the other hand, the respondents No. 4 and 5 possess the degree in Mechanical Engineering but they do not have the basic qualification of Diploma in Automobile or Mechanical Engineering. Despite that, the respondents No. 4 and 5 have been selected and recommended by the Public Service Commission by the Notification dated 18.05.2015 under No. F.11 (38-4)-RECTT/TPSC/2014(Vol-I) dated 18.05.2015(Annexure-4 to the writ petition) for appointment to the post of Inspector Motor Vehicles. 5. The petitioners have averred that the respondent No. 3 conducted the screening test as well as interview and on the basis of the screening test the candidates who had secured the cut-off marks were invited for interview which had been held on 02.05.2015. The petitioners were also asked to appear in the interview as they secured the cut-off marks. However, they were not finally selected. According to the petitioner, the respondents No. 4 and 5 do not have the basic and requisite qualifications for the said post of Inspector Motor Vehicles. Hence, they have challenged their selection by this writ petition. 6. The petitioners were also asked to appear in the interview as they secured the cut-off marks. However, they were not finally selected. According to the petitioner, the respondents No. 4 and 5 do not have the basic and requisite qualifications for the said post of Inspector Motor Vehicles. Hence, they have challenged their selection by this writ petition. 6. Though the respondents No. 1 and 2 took a stand initially that they would not file any counter affidavit but they would adopt the counter affidavit that has been filed by the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 in their counter affidavit has stated that the contentions of the petitioner that the respondents No. 4 and 5 do not possess the eligibility are absolutely without any merit. In the Para-8, the respondent No. 3 has averred as under: “It is astonishing that the petitioners have alleged that persons with higher qualification were ineligible for applying for the post and allegation that the acceptance of the applications of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 resulted in unfair competition amongst un-equals. The further allegations that 3 years Diploma in Automobile/Mechanical Engineering was the essential qualification and was not the minimum qualification and such the answering respondent illegally entertained the applications of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, ought not have been allowed to participate in the selection process and that had the said respondents been disallowed to participate in the selection process, the petitioners would surely be selected and be recommended for the said posts. It is strongly denied.” 7. Later on, the respondents No. 1 and 2 by filing a short affidavit had adopted the reply filed by the respondent No.3, but subsequently they have filed an additional affidavit. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have contended thereby that the basic qualification for prosecuting degree course in Automobile or Mechanical Engineering in Tripura Institute of Technology (TIT in short) and National Institute of Technology (NIT in short) for lateral admission is the Diploma in Engine2ering in the relevant branch. There are two types of admission programmes viz. (i) vertical entry and (ii) lateral entry. The basic qualification for vertical entry is Higher Secondary (+ 2 Stage) Examination with aggregate marks of 50% in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics for general category candidates. For SC /ST candidates the percentage of marks in aggregate is relaxed to 40%. There are two types of admission programmes viz. (i) vertical entry and (ii) lateral entry. The basic qualification for vertical entry is Higher Secondary (+ 2 Stage) Examination with aggregate marks of 50% in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics for general category candidates. For SC /ST candidates the percentage of marks in aggregate is relaxed to 40%. The basic qualification for lateral entry i.e. direct admission in the second year[3rd Semester] of the degree is that an applicant must possess the diploma in Engineering from any recognized Board /Council/University with minimum 45% of marks and 40% marks respectively for UR category and the reserved category candidates. But this is not the direct admission made through the entrance examination. 8. Based on the prospectus as annexed to their affidavit the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have contended in the paragraph 6 that there is no force in the claim of the petitioner that the B.E. qualification is not a higher qualification than the diploma course in the same subject. Therefore, the candidates having degree should be held to be eligible to compete for the post advertised and the TPSC did not do any mischief with the provision of the Recruitment Rules which provide the essential qualification of 3-year diploma course in Automobile Engineering/Mechanical Engineering from a recognized institution and that cannot exclude the degree course in Automobile Engineering/Mechanical Engineering being the higher qualification in the same stream. 9. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have further submitted that if that analogy of the petitioner is accepted those basic degree holder candidates should have been debarred as ‘over qualified’ or from competing in the selection process. Such analogy does not stand to reason. ‘Over-qualification’ in the same stream does not essentially create a bar in the public employment. 10. Against the said additional affidavit, the petitioners have filed a comprehensive rejoinder annexing the syllabi of various courses and on comparison thereof and having particular regard to the requirement of the basic qualification for the post of Inspector, Motor Vehicles a table has been prepared and the said table is reproduced hereunder. According to the petitioners, three-year diploma course in Automobile Engineering includes a paper for the Motor Vehicles Act carrying 100 marks apart that the maintenance and service station management [100 marks]. Farm machinery and Earth moving equipment [100 marks] and driving practice [50 marks] are included in the said course. According to the petitioners, three-year diploma course in Automobile Engineering includes a paper for the Motor Vehicles Act carrying 100 marks apart that the maintenance and service station management [100 marks]. Farm machinery and Earth moving equipment [100 marks] and driving practice [50 marks] are included in the said course. But those are not included in the degree course of Mechanical Engineering. Diploma Mechanical Degree Mechanical 1. Basic Electrical Engineering (Teeory) 100 marks Not available in degree course 2. Thermodynamics Course content Steam Condenser, Steam Engine Not available in Degree course 3. Strength of Material Course content Different types of spring, uses, Simple problem for example closely coiled helical spring subject to axial load, shear strees, deflection, stiffness, strain energy etc Not available in Degree course 4. Estimating & Costing 50 marks Not available in Degree Course 5. General Maintenance of Advance Machine tools 6. Metallurgy Course content Powder Metallurgy Plastic & their Processes 7. Metrology 50 marks Not available in Degree Course 8. Advance Mechanical Engineering Drawing I & II 200 marks Machine Design in the course 9. Entrepreneurial Development Not available in Degree course 10. Power plant Engineering Not available in Degree course Course content available in Diploma Coal handling and combustion, ash handling and dust collection, condensers (surface), and circulating water system, electrical equipments, measurements and instrumentation Not available in Degree course Diploma in Automobile Degree in Mechanical Only available in Diploma Automobile Engineering 1. Motor Vehicle Act 100 marks Not available Course content Motor Vehicle Act (1989), Road Safety, Taxation Insurance 2. Maintenance & Service Station Management 100 marks Not available Course Content Maintenance Management, Engine Maintenance, Chassis Maintenance, Service Station Management, Service Station Tools and Equipment 3. Farm Machinery & Earth Moving Equipment 100 marks Not available Course content, Tractors, Attachments in Power Tiller, Basic Sholvel, Plant Protection Equipment, Harvesting Machinery 4. Driving Practice 50 marks Not available 11. Maintenance & Service Station Management 100 marks Not available Course Content Maintenance Management, Engine Maintenance, Chassis Maintenance, Service Station Management, Service Station Tools and Equipment 3. Farm Machinery & Earth Moving Equipment 100 marks Not available Course content, Tractors, Attachments in Power Tiller, Basic Sholvel, Plant Protection Equipment, Harvesting Machinery 4. Driving Practice 50 marks Not available 11. Based on such comparison the petitioners have asserted in the rejoinder as under: “It is, therefore, manifest on the fact of the records that the Private respondents not having possessed essential qualification namely diploma in either Automobile or Mechanical Engineering have not studied several important subjects as well as topics as those are not included in the syllabus for Degree Course in Engineering and, therefore, syllabus for Degree Course in Engineering having not included the subjects and topics studied by Diploma Engineers, the Degree Engineers can neither be considered to possess either equal or higher education in Engineering for the purpose of determining suitability for the post Inspector, Motor Vehicle. I say that consequently the impugned selection and appointment of the respondents No. 4 and 5 should be quashed and the State respondents should be directed to consider selection and appointment of the petitioners.” 12. It has been further averred in the rejoinder that mere possession of Diploma in Mechanical or Automobile Engineering does not satisfy the requirement for admission in the degree course of Mechanical or Automobile Engineering but those who obtained the diploma in Engineering they may be inducted through the Entrance Examination in the third semester of the degree course of Engineering. That cannot imply or mean what has been imparted during the diploma course, the same educational instruction is provided in the first two semesters of the degree course in Mechanical and Automobile engineering. 13. This Court had directed the respondent No. 3 to produce the records to have glimpse how they have considered the Degree in Mechanical Engineering as the essential educational qualification for selection for the post of Inspector, Motor Vehicles. In the file No. F. No. F. 11(38-4)-Rectt/TPSE/2014, under Note No.5, the following observation has been made: (i) Candidates in Sl. No. 1-2556 may be treated as eligible (ii) In the last such recruitment process, Degree Engineering were also declared eligible (Link file attached so candidates in Sl. No. 257-361 may also be treated as eligible. In the file No. F. No. F. 11(38-4)-Rectt/TPSE/2014, under Note No.5, the following observation has been made: (i) Candidates in Sl. No. 1-2556 may be treated as eligible (ii) In the last such recruitment process, Degree Engineering were also declared eligible (Link file attached so candidates in Sl. No. 257-361 may also be treated as eligible. (iii) In the last recruitment process production Engineers were also declared eligible (Note 10 & 11 in link file) (iv) Candidate in Sl. No. 371 may be declared eligible as he passed in the year 2010. (v) Candidates in Sl. No. 372. 372 is doubtful about the status of the Board/University (vi) Others may be treated as ineligible. After this writ petition was filed, in the same file the Note No. 17 reflects as under: Note No. 17 Reference Note No. 16 A copy of prospectus, published by the Tripura University, containing Rules/norms for admission in under graduate course of technical branches has been collected and handed over to Nodal Officer, Legal Cell TPSC. It is found that the prospectus contains Rules/Norms for lateral entry of Diploma Holder candidates to under-graduate course. The said copy of prospectus may be referred to Addl. Sect., Transport Department, Government of Tripura. 14. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners has succinctly submitted that the petitioners belong to SC Community and as such, they had right to be fairly considered against the vacancies of the Inspector, Motor Vehicles ear-marked for SC candidates. The respondents No. 4 and 5, according to him, do not have the basic essential qualification as per the advertisement No. 09 of 2014 and the Recruitment Rules. Despite that they have been recommended for appointment. 15. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has further submitted that the degree of Mechanical engineering is not the basic essential qualification. The essential qualification is three-year Diploma in Automobile Engineering/Mechanical Engineering from a recognized institution. Mr. Bhowmii, learned senior counsel has further stated that the degree course of Engineering is not a course which is secured after passing the three-year diploma course of Mechanical Engineering or Automobile Engineering. From the comparative table as provided in the rejoinder, it is apparent that some subjects which are closely linked to the duties and responsibilities of the Inspector, Motor Vehicles are not at all instructed in the said degree course of Engineering. From the comparative table as provided in the rejoinder, it is apparent that some subjects which are closely linked to the duties and responsibilities of the Inspector, Motor Vehicles are not at all instructed in the said degree course of Engineering. Thus, the candidates having degree of Mechanical Engineering cannot be treated as eligible according to the Recruitment Rules and having treated them ‘eligible’ the respondent No. 2, has acted against the rule and as such, the selection of the respondents No. 4 and 5 stands wholly vitiated. 16. In support of his contention, Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has relied on decision of the Apex Court in Yogesh Kumar and Others v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi and Others. In that case the controversy hinged around the recruitment to the Assistant Teacher in the primary schools of Municipal Corporation, Delhi. According to the advertisement for recruitment, essential qualifications as was sought was two-year Teacher Training Certificate from a recognized institute with Higher Secondary passed or the Intermediate or equivalent from a recognized Board and one year Teacher Training Certificate from a recognized institute. Some of the candidates who had passed BEd. degree approached the Delhi High Court for allowing them to participate in the said recruitment process. The Apex Court concurred with the reasoning of the Delhi High Court on making a comparative study of TTC and BEd. and held that a specialized training given to teacher to teach small children in the primary level cannot be compared with BEd. degree. Merely because primary teachers can earn promotion to the post of teachers to the higher classes for which BEd has been prescribed as the qualification cannot be held that BEd is a higher qualification than TTC. Looking to the different nature of TTC qualification, the High Court held that it is not comparable with BEd degree qualification and cannot be treated as higher qualification. 17. In Yogesh Kumar and Others v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi and Others, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 548 , where the Apex Court has unequivocally held as under: This last argument advanced also does not impress us at all. Recruitment to public services should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any. Deviation from the rules allows entry to ineligibly persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post. Recruitment to public services should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any. Deviation from the rules allows entry to ineligibly persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post. Merely because in the past some deviation and departure was made in considering the BEd., candidates and we are told that was so done because of the paucity of TTC candidates, we cannot allow a patent illegality to continue. The recruitment authorities were well aware that candidates with qualification of TTC and BEd., are available yet they chose to restrict entry for appointment only to TTC pass candidates. It is open to the recruiting authorities to evolve a policy of recruitment and to decide the source from which the recruitment is to be made. So far as BEd., qualification is concerned, in the connected appeals (CAs Nos. 1726-28/2001) arising from Kerala which are heard with this appeals, we have already taken the view that BEd., qualification cannot be treated as a qualification higher than TTC because the nature of the training imparted for grant of certificate and for degree is totally different and between them there is no parity whatsoever. It is projected before us that presently more candidates available for recruitment to primary school are from BEd., category and very few from TTC category. Whether for the aforesaid reasons, BEd., qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider BEd. candidates for the present vacancies advertised as eligible. In our view, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that BEd. candidates were rightly excluded by the authorities from selection and appointment as primary teacher. We make it clear that we are not called upon to express any opinion on any BEd. candidates appointed as primary teachers pursuant to advertisements in the past and our decision is confined only to the advertisement which was under challenge before the High Court and in this appeal.” [Emphasis added] 18. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has relied on another Apex Court decision in State of Punjab and Others v. Anita and Others, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 170 where the Apex has Court held thus: “18. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has relied on another Apex Court decision in State of Punjab and Others v. Anita and Others, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 170 where the Apex has Court held thus: “18. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the private respondents, based on the Government Instruction dated 20.12.1995, we are of the view, that the private respondents do not satisfy the precondition of valid appointment expressed therein, inasmuch as, it was imperative for the Selection Committee, in the first instance, to consider only those candidates who possessed the qualification of JBT/ETT, and thereupon, posts that remained unfilled could be filled up with person possessing higher qualification i.e. graduate;/postgraduate qualifications along with BEd. That was not the procedure which came to be adopted in the present controversy. Therefore per se, no benefit can flow to the private respondents, from the government instructions relied upon by the learned counsel. Be that as it may, it needs to be emphasized that Para 6 of the Government Instruction dated 20.12.1995, is in clear violation of the statutory process of selection and appointment postulated under the 1981 Rules. Even if the above government instructions would have bestowed validity on the selection process, through which the private respondents came to be appointed, the same could not have been acceded to, since government instruction is violation of the statutory rules are a nullity in law. In view of the foregoing reasons, it is no possible for us to bestow legitimacy/legality to the appointment of the respondents as JBT/ETT Teacher.” [Emphasis added] 19. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has thus contended that even the respondent No. 3, Tripura Public Service Commission is not with any authority to determine the eligibility, essentially required for any recruitment. They are to conduct the selection process in conformity to the statutory rules else the selection would be a nullity in law. 20. Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 and 5 and Mr. They are to conduct the selection process in conformity to the statutory rules else the selection would be a nullity in law. 20. Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 and 5 and Mr. T.D. Majudmer, learned G.A. have placed their reasonings on the same analogy that the degree in Engineering is a “higher course”, as a person having three-year diploma in Engineering can enter laterally to the third semester of the degree course of Engineering and the syllabus for the two initial semesters, even if not identical, but the instructions provide the foundation for the further studies. If a person having the higher qualification is considered along with the candidates having the comparatively inferior qualifications, that cannot be stated to be arbitrary, unfair or illegal. 21. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel in particular has submitted that from the prospectus of the Tripura Institute of Technology and syllabus of the Tripura University it would be inferential that a person having degree in Engineering secures the better knowledge of Engineering and on the correlated subjects. In support of his contention, Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has relied on a decision on Apex Court in P.M. Latha and Another v. State of Kerala and Others, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 541 , where the Apex Court has observed as under: “13. Equity and law are twin brothers and law should be applied and interpreted equitably but equity cannot override written or settled law. The Division Bench forgot that in extending relief on equity to BEd. candidates who were unqualified and yet allowed to compete and seek appointments contrary to the terms of the advertisement, it is not redressing the injustice caused to the appellants who were TTC candidates and would have secured a better position in the rank list to get appointment against the available vacancies, had BEd. candidates been excluded from the selection. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench is illegal, inequitable and patently unjust. The TTC candidates before us as appellants have been wrongly deprived of due chance of selection and appointment. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench, therefore, deserves to be set aside and of the learned Single Judge restored. 14. candidates been excluded from the selection. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench is illegal, inequitable and patently unjust. The TTC candidates before us as appellants have been wrongly deprived of due chance of selection and appointment. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench, therefore, deserves to be set aside and of the learned Single Judge restored. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent states that two interim orders were made by this Court during the pendency of special leave petitions and after grant of leave for these appeals, the relevant orders dated 03.07.2000 and 01.03.2001 read as under: Court order dated 03.07.200 “Take on board. Issue notice. Any appointment in the meanwhile made will be subject to the result of any other passed this SLP”. Court order dated 01.03.2001 “* * * Mr P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel submitted on behalf of the State of Kerala that TTC holders alone will be appointed in the vacancies arising in respect of lower primary Schools (LPS). This will continue for the future posts also until otherwise decided by this Court. He submitted that so far as upper primary Schools (UPS) are concerned, until otherwise decided, TTC holders as well as BEd. holders will be considered and the Public Service Commission (PSC) will select the persons out of this as one category who are more competent among them of appointment. We make it clear that all such appointments made after 03.07.2000 will b e treated as only provisional appointments and be subject to the final result of the appeals. 15. Learned counsel for the private respondents relying on the above orders of this Court, submits that since the BED. candidates have been appointed after amendment of the Rules and on the statement made by the counsel for the State and the Public Service Commission, this Court should not upset the appointment of BEd. candidates already made. 16. We have held that the impugned judgment of the Division Bench is liable to be set aside and that of the Single Judge maintained. Having thus, reached a conclusion in favour of the present appellants who are TTC candidates, it would be highly unreasonable to deny them relief merely because of the interim orders or arrangements made thereby by this Court under the aforesaid two orders, BEd. candidates were allowed to be appointed only provisionally. We taken note of the fact that all the BEd. candidates were allowed to be appointed only provisionally. We taken note of the fact that all the BEd. candidates who have been arrayed as respondents to these appeals have been served with notices of these appeals, only a few of them are represented through counsel. In these circumstances, we would restrict the relief to the candidates who were petitioners before the learned Single Judge including the present appellants.” 22. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel, has referred to Anita and others(supra), which has been referred by Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel. True it is that in Anita (supra) it has been also observed as under: “10. While examining the advertisement, which has been extracted hereinabove, we are satisfied that the applications were not invited from candidates possessing the qualification depicted in the Appendix to the 1981 Rules, pertaining to the posts of JBT/ETT Teachers. It is also apparent, that none of the private respondents possess the qualification of JBT/ETT, and as such, none of them can be stated to be possessed of qualifications statutorily prescribed and delineated in the Appendix to the 1981 Rules. None of the private respondents was therefore per se eligible for appointment to the posts of JBT/ETT Teachers. This was one of the pointed reasons why the State Government did not grant its approval to the selection and appointment of the private respondents. In our considered view, no infirmity can be found in the aforesaid determination at the hands of the State Government.” [Emphasis added] 23. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. has submitted that In Jyoti K.K. and Others v. Kerala Public Service Commission, reported in (2010) 15 SCC 596, the Apex Court has held that the qualification for higher post 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 i.e. the diploma in that subject prescribed for the post and that shall be considered to be sufficient for that post. This is a rule which presupposes that unless discarded by the State that can be applied for the recruitment. In Jyoti K.K. (supra) the following has been observed: “4. This is a rule which presupposes that unless discarded by the State that can be applied for the recruitment. In Jyoti K.K. (supra) the following has been observed: “4. The Commission contended before the High Court, as is done before us now, that the graduates in Engineering or persons possessing other qualifications, as held by the appellants, that may not be taken as higher qualifications, they are not equivalent qualifications prescribed for the post and persons who possessed higher qualifications can only be taken note of in case where they acquired such higher qualifications after acquiring the prescribed qualifications. Rule 10(a)(ii) of Part I of the Rules was also adverted to, to contend that such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall be sufficient for the post. The qualifications, it was stated, possessed by the appellants do not presuppose the acquisition of the prescribed lower qualifications and, therefore, they were not eligible to be considered. 5. On the question that the said Rules are applicable to the selection posts in the Board, there is no dispute. The High Court after setting out the contentions noticed that there were no executive orders in relation to the equivalent qualifications prescribed by the Government. The High Court stated that the position is that the qualifications possessed by the appellants do not presuppose the acquisition of prescribed lower qualifications and when qualifications have been prescribed for a post, the same cannot be diluted and persons not possessing those qualifications cannot be permitted to be eligible. It was noticed that all those who had similar or even better qualifications than those candidates would not have applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement and such a position would result in “fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications, in such circumstances, unless it is clearly stated that qualifications are relaxable”. On that basis the High Court dismissed the petitions filed by the appellants. The contentions urged before the High Court are reiterated on either side before us. 6. On that basis the High Court dismissed the petitions filed by the appellants. The contentions urged before the High Court are reiterated on either side before us. 6. Rule 10(a)(ii) 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”. [Emphasis supplied] 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 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 qualification 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 for. 8. Under the relevant Rules, for the post of Assistant Engineer, degree in Electrical Engineering of Kerala University or other equivalent qualification recognized 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. In that view of the matter the qualification of degree in Electrical Engineering presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification of diploma in that subject prescribed for the post, shall be considered to be sufficient for that post”. [Emphasis added] 24. In that view of the matter the qualification of degree in Electrical Engineering presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification of diploma in that subject prescribed for the post, shall be considered to be sufficient for that post”. [Emphasis added] 24. Having confronted with the rival contentions this Court finds that the following questions are pertinent in the context: (i) Whether the rule of presupposition has any jurisprudential basis inasmuch as in Joyti K.K. Supra the Apex Court has unequivocally held that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant rules, the same cannot in any manner be whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted. And that higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of lower qualification prescribed for any post. In order to attract the said rule of presupposition that higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. (ii) Whether the respondent No. 3 can change the requirement of the rule which has been statutorily provided when the State has not acted upon by bringing about chang in the recruitment rules. No doubt Rule of presupposition gives an elbow space to depart from the statutory requirement. Which is not departure, but is reading the required qualification despite the higher qualification. There is apparent dichotomy in Joyti K.K. (supra) when it says that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant rule, the same cannot in any manner be whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted and when at the same breathe it has been stated that the lower qualification prescribed for that post can be presupposed in the higher qualification, if it presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification. The word, acquisition of lower qualification, means that after securing the lower qualification the higher qualification has been acquired. Hence, merely for acquisition of the higher qualification one aspirant cannot be discarded. But it would be a different situation when merely for acquisition of higher qualification which cannot presuppose the acquisitions of the lower qualification prescribed for the post can someone rightly claim his stake on the post? 25. Even in P.M. Latha (supra) the Apex Court refused to consider the person having higher qualification of the degree in lieu of the prescribed qualification. 25. Even in P.M. Latha (supra) the Apex Court refused to consider the person having higher qualification of the degree in lieu of the prescribed qualification. In Yogesh Kumar and Others(supra) the Apex Court has unequivocally laid down the rule that merely because in the past some deviation and departure has been made by way of considering the BEd candidates, the same cannot be allowed as such departure is a patent illegality, it cannot be allowed go on in perpetuity. It is open, to the authority to evolve the Recruitment Rules to decide the source from which recruitment is to be made. The Apex Court in Yogesh Kumar (supra) has taken a clear view that the nature of the training imparted for grant of the certificate and for the degree having been different there cannot be any parity whatsoever. 26. Finally, in Anita (supra) the Apex Court has responded the dichotomy in Jyoti K.K (supra). by holding that no selection can be held valid which has been carried out in contrast to the statutory process or rules. Unequivocally it has been provided that even the Govt. instructions would not lend validity on the selection process, even though some candidates came to be appointed. That cannot be acceded to, inasmuch as the Govt. instructions which are in violation of the statutory rules are nullity in law. In Anita (supra) it has been clearly held that no person other than who is qualified in accordance Recruitment Rules can be appointed. 27. It is an admitted position that the respondents No. 4 and 5 do not have the basic essential qualification of three-year diploma in Automobile or Mechanical Engineering and the degree of Engineering has not been acquired on acquisition of the said diploma course. Even, by any stretch, the evolved rule of presupposition cannot be applied in this case. Having held so, this court does not have any hesitation to hold further that the selection of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, as this court was not urged to examine the selection of the others, is in contrary to the Recruitment Rules and the said advertisement and is therefore, a nullity of law. 28. Hence that selection is interfered with and quashed. As corollary to that, the appointments of the respondents No. 4 and 5 based on the said selection are quashed and set aside. 28. Hence that selection is interfered with and quashed. As corollary to that, the appointments of the respondents No. 4 and 5 based on the said selection are quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 3 is directed to reconsider the recommendation by excluding the respondents No. 4 and 5 and alike and if it is found that according to the merit position the petitioners are entitled to be recommended against the vacancies ear-marked for SC candidates, they should make such recommendation within 30 days from today for appointment to the post of Inspector, Motor Vehicles under the Transport Department. Needless to say, the respondent No. 3 shall recommend the suitable candidates from the select panel against those vacancies in the said post of Inspector, Motor Vehicles, particularly ear-marked for SC candidates in any case even if it is found that the petitioners cannot be recommended made in terms of the merit position. It is made further clear that the recommendation for the other candidates belonging to UR or ST will have no impact, as this Court had no occasion to examine the process of their recommendation. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. The records produced by the respondent No. 3 are returned under the sealed cover. No order as to costs.