JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, C.J. Leave granted. 2. The writ petitioner/respondent no. 1 pursued Bachelors Degree Course in Pharmacy successfully and got enrolled with the Uttarakhand Pharmacy Council. He applied pursuant to the Advertisement issued by respondent no. 2 inviting applications for the post of Pharmacist. He approached this Court seeking a direction to consider his candidature, as he possessed a higher qualification in the same stream. 3. The learned Single Judge took the view that there may be analogy to deny the consideration of a candidate if the applicant holds a very higher qualification that (sic), it must be ‘than’, what is needed for the task, but the difference between holding diploma and degree is only of one pedestal. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge proceeded to take the view that there is no harm if the candidature of the writ petitioner is considered, provided he fulfills the other qualifications. The writ petition was allowed and the direction was not to reject the candidature of the writ petitioner on the ground that he holds a degree instead of diploma and that he shall be considered for the post of Pharmacist pursuant to Advertisement dated 16.12.2014. 4. We heard Mr. Manoj Tiwari, learned senior counsel for the appellants, Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos. 2 and 3. 5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants would complain that the Rules specifically mandate the possession of diploma in Pharmacy and it is overlooking the said requirement that the learned Single Judge directed consideration of the candidature of the writ petitioner, which is not permissible. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent no. 1 would submit that the writ petitioner is having a higher qualification and he is also enrolled with the State Pharmacy Council. 7. Learned Chief Standing Counsel would also submit that, actually, the Rules must govern and even a higher qualification is not contemplated. 8. The Uttar Pradesh Pharmacists Service Rules, 1980, admittedly, govern the appointment to the post of Pharmacist. Rule 8 provides for the academic qualifications, while Rule 9 provides for preferential qualification. Rule 8 being crucial, we extract the same as follows: “8. 8. The Uttar Pradesh Pharmacists Service Rules, 1980, admittedly, govern the appointment to the post of Pharmacist. Rule 8 provides for the academic qualifications, while Rule 9 provides for preferential qualification. Rule 8 being crucial, we extract the same as follows: “8. Academic Qualification.–A candidate for direct recruitment to the posts in the service must possess diploma in Pharmacy from a recognised institution and must also be registered with the State Pharmacy Council, Uttar Pradesh” 9. A perusal of these Rules leaves us in no doubt that the law-giver intended that a person must possess diploma in Pharmacy from a recognized institution, besides the requirement that he must also be registered with the State Pharmacy Council. 10. The writ petitioner may be registered with the State Pharmacy Council, but admittedly he does not possess diploma in Pharmacy; instead he has degree. The learned Single Judge may be correct in saying that he is having a higher qualification; but, once the law-giver has provided clearly and unambiguously the qualification, which must be possessed, and there is no law pointed out to us which entitles the writ petitioner to rely on the higher qualification, which he possesses, the learned Single Judge was unjustified in directing his candidature to be considered. The said Rule has not been challenged by the writ petitioner. He only sought a mandamus on the basis that he possesses a higher qualification. Bereft of any legal foundation, the argument of the writ petitioner could not have been accepted. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed; the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge will stand set aside; and the writ petition will stand dismissed without any order as to cost. 12. However, we make it clear that in regard to any other recruitment for the post of Pharmacist, this judgment will not stand in the way of the writ petitioner seeking appropriate reliefs after mounting a challenge, if advised, to the Rule in question. 13. All the Applications stand disposed of.