JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, C.J. 1. Since issues raised in both the writ petitions are common, we dispose of the same by this common judgment. 2. Petitioners possessed Degree in Mechanical Engineering. They applied pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission for the post of Lecturer in Automobile Engineering. The advertisement was issued on 22.03.2012. They sat for the examination held on 20.04.2014. The result was declared on 18.07.2014. Petitioners, who belong to Scheduled Caste category, were declared successful. After 9 months on 13.03.2015, the Commission declared 17 candidates including the petitioners as ineligible. They were called upon to file objections, if any, on or before 31.03.2015. Petitioners filed their objections on 26.03.2015. The objections were overruled on 29.04.2015. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Section Officer of the Public Service Commission had rejected the representations of the petitioners finding them to be ineligible as they do not possess B. Tech. in Automobile Engineering but possess B. Tech. in Mechanical Engineering. 3. Since the bone of contention between the parties is to be resolved with reference to the statutory Rule and terms of the advertisement, there is no dispute for requirement of Rule, which is reproduced verbatim, as mentioned in the advertisement. We advert to the Rule, in english version, which reads as follows: “(1)- Degree with 55 percent marks in respective discipline of Engineering / Technical or AMIE (India) (2)- Knowledge of Hindi. Note:- (1) where basic degree in concerned discipline is not awarded or where candidates having such degree are not available candidates having basic bachelor’s degree with respective subject as be effective or special subject shall be considered. (3)– Experience of Government Institutions, Public Sector Undertakings or Limited Organizations only will be acceptable and will be counted after the candidate has attained the prescribed academic qualifications. Preferential Qualifications :- (1) Post graduate degree in the concerned subject. (2) Research work in the concerned subject and knowledge of Hindi. Note – Experience of Government Institutions, Public Sector Undertaking or Limited Organizations only will be acceptable.” We heard Mr. Bhagwat Mehra & Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocates for the petitioners, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for the Public Service Commission and Mr. Vikas Pandey, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, whose arguments have been adopted by Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, would address the following submissions: 4. Bhagwat Mehra & Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocates for the petitioners, Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for the Public Service Commission and Mr. Vikas Pandey, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, whose arguments have been adopted by Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, would address the following submissions: 4. He would submit that even proceeding on the basis that petitioners do not possess the Degree in the respective Discipline, which is mentioned in the main part of the Rule namely B. Tech in Automobile Engineering, their case stands salvaged with reference to the term of Note, which is found just beneath it. In other words, he would submit that since they have secured B. Tech Degree in Mechanical Engineering, it must be treated as sufficient having regard to the following facts. There were 24 persons, who have originally declared eligible including the petitioners. There were 4 posts reserved for general category candidates whereas 2 posts reserved for scheduled caste candidates. 17 candidates, as already noted above, were declared ineligible and 7 were declared eligible. Out of 7, only one belongs to the scheduled caste category. Subsequently, 3 more were declared eligible by the Commission. All three belong to general category. Thus, there were two posts reserved for scheduled caste and only one candidate was declared eligible. The fate of this candidate is also focused on in the following manner. It is submitted that this Court had already passed an order directing that the results be not declared. This order was subsequently modified permitting the declaration of the result of other than scheduled caste candidates. It is complained that this direction was observed in its breach by the declaration of result of 9 general candidates and also one scheduled caste candidate on 11.02.2016. It is, however, submitted that the result of Sri Deepak Kumar, a scheduled caste candidate, shows that he secured only 33 marks in the interview. The cut off mark fixed for the members of scheduled caste category is 35, therefore, he could not pass the muster. In short, with reference to the two posts reserved for scheduled caste candidates, there is no one available. Therefore, with reference to the Note, it is contended that though Degree in Automobile Engineering may be awarded, this being the situation, case of the petitioners is covered by the latter part of the Note. In short, with reference to the two posts reserved for scheduled caste candidates, there is no one available. Therefore, with reference to the Note, it is contended that though Degree in Automobile Engineering may be awarded, this being the situation, case of the petitioners is covered by the latter part of the Note. In so far as there is no candidate available from the scheduled caste community, for whom two posts were reserved and treating it as a case covered by the latter part of the Note, the petitioners must succeed, for the reason that they have passed degree in Mechanical Engineering and what is more significant is that during the course, they had successfully studied 80% of subjects, which are common for the students pursuing the course of Degree in Automobile Engineering. 5. It is further pointed out that having regard to the ambiguity, which surrounds the Note, this Court had directed the Government to file counter affidavit to clarify the true purport of the Note. He would complain that though a counter affidavit is filed by the Government, but the same does not shed any light on ambiguous part of the Note. He would further complain that the Commission, in fact, purportedly following the mandate of the Note, appointed a candidate for the post of Lecturer Electronics, even though he did not possess Degree of Engineering in Electronics but he possessed Degree of Engineering in Electronics and Communication. He would submit that having regard to the fact that 80% of subjects is common to both the Automobile Engineering and Mechanical Engineering, the case is covered by the Note. 6. He would buttress his arguments by relying on a few decisions. The first decision, on which reliance is placed, was rendered by Single Bench (Hon. Mansoor Ahmed Mir, Chief Justice) of Himachal Pradesh High Court. He would submit that in the said case, the Court took the view that for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering, the Degree in Automobile Engineering would suffice. 7. He seeks support from judgment of learned Single Judge of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which would tend to show that either of the degrees i.e. Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering would suffice for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector. 7. He seeks support from judgment of learned Single Judge of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which would tend to show that either of the degrees i.e. Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering would suffice for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector. He also seeks support from the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Teeka Ram Tripathi & others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others (WPSB No. 257 of 2004) decided on 19.11.2010. He submits that AMIE is granting degree only in Mechanical Engineering. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the person was selected for the post of Lecturer in Electronics though he did not possess B. Tech in Electronics while there were candidates with B.Tech in Electronics available. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the Commission and Government would submit that petitioners are not entitled to treat the degree in Mechanical Engineering as sufficient within the scope of the Note. 10. We will first deal with judgments, which have been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners. As far as judgment of learned Single Judge of Himachal Pradesh High Court is concerned, there the Court was dealing with the case where Public Service Commission had invited the applications for the post of Lecturer (Automobile Engineering) Class I. The qualification, which was prescribed, was first class Bachelor Degree in Automobile Engineer / Technology or equivalent. The Commission did not accept the claim of the candidate that he had equivalent qualification by virtue of possessing B. Tech in Mechanical Engineering. Learned Single Judge proceeded to take note of the fact inter alia that concerned University i.e. expert body has stated that qualification of B. Tech. in Automobile Engineering is equivalent to Mechanical Engineering. Learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2012 (3) SCC 129 to hold that the “equivalent” must be given a reasonable meaning and it was in these circumstances, the Court proceeded to allow the writ petition taking the view that qualification must be treated as equivalent. 11. This judgment may not assist the petitioners. This for the reason that we are not concerned with similar Rule and here, it is not a question whether the qualification is to be treated as equivalent. 11. This judgment may not assist the petitioners. This for the reason that we are not concerned with similar Rule and here, it is not a question whether the qualification is to be treated as equivalent. Rule maker has not provided that equivalent qualification of Engineering Degree in the concerned branch will be treated as equivalent to the basic Degree in concerned branch. This Court cannot, therefore, accept the case based on said judgment. 12. As far as reliance placed on judgment of Jammu and Kashmir High Court is concerned, it cannot assist the petitioners, for the reason that we have to deal with the matter in terms of the Rule, in question, which was reproduced in the advertisement also. Therefore, we cannot, merely on the basis of what is observed by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court hold the petitioners eligible. 13. As far as the judgment of this High Court is concerned, the contention of the petitioners was that two posts of Lecturer in Commerce in the Polytechnics must be filled up by promoting them. The Court noted the case of the State was that three posts of Lecturer (Commercial Practice) and three posts of Lecturer (Commerce) were earlier supplied by direct recruitment and as a result vacancy in two posts of Lecturer (Commerce) were available and since the vacant posts are of Lecturer (Commerce) and they cannot be supplied by promotion, as no one qualified to supply the said post, was available in the feeder post. Petitioners were in the feeder posts of Lecturer (Commercial Practice), and thereafter, the Court proceeded to hold as under: “3. It would be worthwhile to mention at this juncture that the Rules do not speak about posts of Lecturers (Commerce) and Lecturers (Commercial Practice). Rules speak of Lecturer (Non Engineering Subjects). The State Government with its pleadings, as above, has not annexed any decision by or on behalf of the State Government permitting creation of five posts of Lecturers (Commerce) and three posts of Lecturers (Commercial Practice) out of the said eight posts of Lecturers (Non Engineering Subjects). Assuming such creation was made, at the time of filling up three posts of Lecturer (Commercial Practice) the State was required to promote atleast one in those posts. The State has not done so. No explanation has been given by the State as to why it did not do so. Assuming such creation was made, at the time of filling up three posts of Lecturer (Commercial Practice) the State was required to promote atleast one in those posts. The State has not done so. No explanation has been given by the State as to why it did not do so. Further more, when the said Rules were made the framers of the Rules, as appears from the words used by them, proceeded on the basis that for 25% of the posts of the Lecturer (Non Engineering Subjects), there would be persons available in the Feeder posts mentioned in the Rules and accordingly nowhere provided that if persons are not available in the Feeder Posts, the posts available for promotees may be occupied by direct recruitees. That also is a pointer that there had been and has been either consciously or otherwise no distinction between Lecturer (Commerce) and the Lecturer (Commercial Practice). Those have been created in the pleadings with the sole object of misleading this Court. It is surprising that three polytechnics will have Lecturers to teach Commercial Practice but will have no Lecturer to teach Commerce and the other five polytechnics will have Lecturers to teach Commerce but no Lecturer to teach Commercial Practice. By using the words “Commerce” and “Commercial Practice” the State has sought to deliberately mislead this Court. 4. By reason of the discussions above, it is now crystal clear that the said two posts were not available for being supplied by direct recruitees, we accordingly confirm the interim order while allowing the writ petition and direct the State to fill up those posts by promotion in terms of the mandate of the said Rules, as quickly as possible, but not later than six months from the date of service of a copy of this order upon the Secretary Department of Technical Education, Government of Uttaranchal.” 14. We would say that this judgment cannot be of any assistance of the petitioners, as we are concerned with the scope of the Note. 15. The intention of the Rule maker appears to be that for the post, in question, be it in Engineering, Technical Branch or post of Foreman (Automobile), Degree in the concerned branch is the essential qualification with 55% or more. 16. Admittedly, petitioners do not possess degree in Automobile Engineering. 15. The intention of the Rule maker appears to be that for the post, in question, be it in Engineering, Technical Branch or post of Foreman (Automobile), Degree in the concerned branch is the essential qualification with 55% or more. 16. Admittedly, petitioners do not possess degree in Automobile Engineering. The very fact that 9 persons have been declared eligible, as they possess the qualification of Degree in Automobile Engineering, would show that it is a Degree, which is being awarded and candidates with such Degree are available. There is no doubt that as far as members of the Scheduled Caste category are concerned only one successful candidate was available but his fate has already been alluded to in the judgment. 17. As far as the tenability of the claim of the petitioners based on the Note is concerned, we would think that the Note does not provide for equivalent qualification being taken into consideration, in the absence of Degree holder in the concerned branch of Engineering. What it purports to say is that when either the degree is not being awarded or persons with said degree are not available. (Petitioners’ case is apparently based on the second part) and if a person has got basic degree in the respective subject, then the person can be considered. 18. It is true that there is some ambiguity in the Rule but we would take the assistance of the illustration provided by the learned counsel for the petitioners himself in answering the case giving our opinion against the petitioners. Petitioners complain that for the post of Lecturer in Electronics, a person, who had obtained Degree of Engineering in Electronics and Communication, has been selected. This would show how the Authorities have understood the Rule. As no one was available for the post of Lecturer Electronics having Engineering Degree in Electronics, therefore, Authorities have considered the candidature of a person, who possessed B. Tech in Electronics and Communication. It is case where concerned person has obtained Engineering Degree in Electronics and Communication. He happens to have a Degree in Electronics along with Degree in Communication. This is not a case as far as the petitioners are concerned. What the petitioners have secured is Degree in Mechanical Engineering. It is case where concerned person has obtained Engineering Degree in Electronics and Communication. He happens to have a Degree in Electronics along with Degree in Communication. This is not a case as far as the petitioners are concerned. What the petitioners have secured is Degree in Mechanical Engineering. In fact, we also noticed that in the syllabus produced by the petitioners while there may be similarity in the course undergone by the students pursuing B. Tech in Automobile Engineering and Mechanical Engineering, as far as Automobile Engineering as such is concerned, while it does figure in the syllabus in 4th year as a subject, only three lectures are devoted to the same while one tutorial is provided for the same under the heading periods. No doubt for the practical in respect of subject Automobile Engineering Lab 2 periods are mentioned. We cannot possibly hold that petitioners are having basic Bachelor Degree with the respective subject (Automobile Engineering). 19. In such circumstances, petitioners cannot succeed. We must also bear in mind that the view of the Public Service Commission, a constitutional body, in such matters should not be lightly interfered with. Unless a clear case is made out, the Court should slow to interfere in such matters. Consequently, writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 20. Let copy of this judgment be placed in the connected petition.