ORDER 1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of connected writ appeals as the controversy involved are identical. For the sake of convenience, we have taken facts from Writ Petition No.10466/2016. 2. The M.P. Public Service Commission issued advertisement No.4 dated 18.6.2016 for online submission of application forms by eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Assistant Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in the State of M.P. The last date for submission of online form was 30th June, 2016. In the advertisement, clause regarding eligibility criteria reads as under:- ^^¼th½ 1- fof/k ds fu;eksa ds v/khu LFkkfir Hkkjr dh fdlh ekU;rk izkIr fo'ofo|ky;@ laLFkk ls i'kqfpfdRlk foKku esa LukrdA 2- fof/k ds fu;e ds v/khu LFkkfir e/; izns'k jkT; i'kq fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ds v/khu in ds foKkiu dh rkjh[k ds iwoZ iathd`rA 3- iathdj.k LFkk;h gksuk vfuok;Z gSaA** 3. Number of writ petitions were filed challenging the eligibility criteria by those who did not possess the requisite eligibility or those who did not fulfil the requisite eligible qualification before the date of issuance of advertisement. Those petitions were clubbed together and decided by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.10466/2016 by a common order. The learned Single Judge found no merit in the challenge that the M.P. Public Service Commission had added something on its own in the advertisement contrary to the service recruitment rules. On the second contention, learned Single Judge directed the M.P. Public Service Commission to examine the case of each candidate to find out whether they fulfil the eligible criteria before the date of issuance of advertisement. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed in Writ Petition No.10466/2016, these writ appeals have been filed. The M.P. Public Service Commission has also filed two writ appeals namely Writ Appeal No.424/2017 challenging the order passed by the learned Single Bench at Indore in Writ Petition No.4342/2016 and Writ Appeal No.425/2017 against the order delivered by the learned Single Judge at Indore in Writ Petition No.5244/2016. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants assailed the order passed by learned Single Judge on the ground that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge on the first point is contrary to law and the recruitment rules. Heavy reliance has been placed on the unreported decision rendered by the learned Single Judge at Indore Bench in Writ Petition No.4342/2016. 6. Heavy reliance has been placed on the unreported decision rendered by the learned Single Judge at Indore Bench in Writ Petition No.4342/2016. 6. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the M.P. Public Service Commission justified the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that if this Court reads the eligibility criteria and the recruitment rules, Single Bench found no discrepancy in the advertisement. The recruitment rules are very clear that a candidate must have graduation degree and must have a permanent registration before the date of issuance of advertisement. This condition contained in the advertisement is in consonance with the requirement provided under the Rules. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, committed no error in rejecting the contention of those candidates who did not possess the eligibility criteria before the date of advertisement. 7. It is an admitted fact that appellants have no permanent registration certificate. They only have a provisional registration certificate on the date of advertisement. Their candidature was, therefore, rejected by the M.P. Public Service Commission as they did not fulfil the eligibility criteria. The learned Single Judge while deciding the controversy has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Shailesh Kumar Patel and others v. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2013(3) MPLJ 391 . 8. After having heard the rival submissions and considering the material available on record, we find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference on either score. There is no ambiguity in the rules or the advertisement regarding possession of eligibility criteria. 9. The learned Single Judge while deciding the controversy has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Shankar K. Mandal and others v. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2003)9 SCC 519 , Alka Ojha v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and another (2011)9 SCC 438 and Bhupinderpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (2000) 5 SCC 262 ]. It is a well reasoned and elaborate order and we do not sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the learned Single Judge. The intra-Court appeal is to correct error and, therefore, on the first point, the decision is affirmed. It is a well reasoned and elaborate order and we do not sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the learned Single Judge. The intra-Court appeal is to correct error and, therefore, on the first point, the decision is affirmed. As far as the second point is concerned, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the M.P. Public Service Commission to scrutinize the cases to determine the eligibility in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Shailesh Kumar Patel (supra), vis-a-vis the cut-off date provided in the advertisement and ascertain if they were having the requisite qualification on the cut-off date and then to proceed further in accordance with law. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, we dismiss the bunch of writ appeals except Writ Appeal No.424/2017 and Writ Appeal No.425/2017 filed by the M.P. Public Service Commission. These two writ appeals are allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4342/2016 and Writ Petition No.5244/2016 is hereby quashed. 11. Let a copy of this order be retained in the file of connected Writ Appeals No.107/2017, 108/2017, 111/2017, 112/2017, 424/2017 and Writ Appeal No. 425/2017. 12. Ordered accordingly.