JUDGMENT : Ramachandra Menon, J. Interference declined by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal with regard to the relief sought for to declare that completion of 'internship' is not a condition precedent for awarding permanent degree in BAMS and to permit the applicants to submit their applications for the post of Medical Officer (Ayurveda) pursuant to Annexure A3 notification, is the subject matter of challenge in this original petition. 2. Heard Sri.C.Rajendran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at length. 3. The petitioners sought to apply to the post of Medical Officer (Ayurveda) pursuant to Annexure A3 notification. Admittedly, as on the last date of notification, i.e., on 17.01.2018, they had not obtained the Degree to satisfy the requirement of 'A' class registration, but according to them, they had already completed the course and have been issued Ext.P1 provisional certificate by the University. The petitioners have also been given 'provisional registration' as borne by Annexure A2 issued by the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council and this being the position, it is contended that they come within the purview of Annexure A3 notification, for which completion of internship could never be insisted as a criterion/yardstick. Apprehending adverse orders/proceedings at the hands of the PSC, the applicants approached the Tribunal with the following prayers: “(i). To call for the records leading to Ext.P2 and set aside the same and allow the OA. (ii). To issue a direction to the first respondent to accept the applications of the petitioners for the post of Medical Officer (Ayurveda)/Assistant Insurance Medical Officer (Ayurveda) in the Department of the Indian System of Medicines. (iii). To issue a direction to the first respondent to issue a fresh notification or addendum stating that candidates who have got provisional degree certificates in Ayurvedic issued by a recognised University and Provisional Registration Certificate issued by the Travancore Cochin Medical Council are also eligible for submitting their applications for the said post. (iv). To declare that completion of internship is not a condition precedent for avoiding permanent degree in BAMS. (v). to grant such other reliefs in the interest of justice.” 4. (iv). To declare that completion of internship is not a condition precedent for avoiding permanent degree in BAMS. (v). to grant such other reliefs in the interest of justice.” 4. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal held, as per Ext.P2 order, that the qualifications prescribed i.e., a Degree in Ayurveda awarded by a recognized University, as also 'A' class registration by the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council were satisfied by the applicants, but they had still to complete the 'internship' and only on completion of the internship, would they acquire the notified qualification. It was accordingly, that interference was declined holding that the applicants were not qualified and the O.A. came to be dismissed, which made the petitioners to approach this Court seeking immediate interference. 5. With regard to the eligibility of the petitioners, it is pointed out that the verdict passed by the Tribunal is not correct in view of Annexure A1 certificate. It is further stated that the completion of internship is not at all a must, to consider the qualification of the petitioners in view of the ruling rendered by a single Bench of this Court reported in Prasanth G.L. and others v. State of Kerala and others [2006 KHC 782] = [ 2006 (3) KLT 276 ]. Similarly, it is contended that Annexure A3 notification itself is defective, in so far as it has been issued in respect of 'anticipatory vacancies', which is not correct or sustainable in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and others [ AIR 1998 SC 1021 ] = [1998 KHC 816]. The last submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is with regard to the vagueness in respect of the vacancies and if the notification is vague, it is liable to be interdicted and a fresh notification is necessary, in view of the ruling rendered by a single Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.24279/2012 (authored by one of us -P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J). 6. The qualifications prescribed in Annexure A3 notification are in the following terms: “Qualifications :- 1. A Degree in Ayurveda awarded or recognized by any of the Universities in Kerala or equivalent qualification. 2. 'A' Class registration in the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council.” 7. 6. The qualifications prescribed in Annexure A3 notification are in the following terms: “Qualifications :- 1. A Degree in Ayurveda awarded or recognized by any of the Universities in Kerala or equivalent qualification. 2. 'A' Class registration in the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council.” 7. There is no case for the petitioners that there is any ambiguity with regard to the 'qualifications', though there is a contention that it is vague in so far as the 'number of vacancy' is concerned. It is the case of the first petitioner that, by virtue of Annexure A1 provisional certificate, she has already been awarded the Degree and so also she had obtained necessary registration by virtue of Annexure A2 provisional registration issued by the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council. 8. On going through the materials on record, it is evident that the idea and understanding of the petitioners are thoroughly wrong and misconceived. Annexure A1 provisional certificate clearly says that the person to whom it has been issued will be eligible for the award of the Degree only on completion of Compulsory Rotating Residential Internship for one year. The petitioners are silent with regard to the said stipulation, while addressing the Court. Coming to Annexure A2 provisional registration, a specific 'note' is contained therein (as the last portion of the said certificate issued on 25.07.2017), which clearly stipulates that the said certificate is valid only for undergoing internship in any approved institution as mentioned in Section 28 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. This clearly means that the petitioners are asked to obtain necessary registration, i.e., 'A' class registration by the Council as stipulated in Annexure A3 notification. This being the position, Annexure A1 'Provisional Degree Certificate' and Annexure A2 'Provisional Registration' cannot be of any help to the petitioners. 9. With regard to the reliance sought to be placed on Prasanth G.L. (supra), it was a case where refund of the interest-free deposit made while joining the MBBS course was sought to be made. The amount was not disbursed stating that internship was still to be completed. It was in the said context, that an observation was made that completion of internship was not necessary for returning the interest-free deposit. No analogy can be drawn by the petitioners, placing reliance on the said decision, to support the cause projected in the present original petition. The amount was not disbursed stating that internship was still to be completed. It was in the said context, that an observation was made that completion of internship was not necessary for returning the interest-free deposit. No analogy can be drawn by the petitioners, placing reliance on the said decision, to support the cause projected in the present original petition. The idea and understanding of the petitioners are totally wrong and quite out of context. 10. With regard to the non-mentioning of the actual number of vacancies while issuing Annexure A3 notification and the reliance sought to be placed on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma (supra), it is to be noted that the question mooted before the Apex Court was with reference to interpretation of Section 13(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980, as amended in the year 1992. The appellant sought to interpret that the vacancies to be filled up under the relevant sub section were not only those which occurred on account of death or resignation, but would include any other vacancy occurred till another list was sent by the Commission under Section 13(2) of the Act. In other words, it would also include the vacancies not advertised, but occurring even for the subsequent academic year. A meticulous analysis of the provision was made by the Apex Court, also with reference to Section 12(2) of the Act. What is intended by the Apex Court is clearly discernible from paragraph 13 of the verdict. We find it appropriate to extract said paragraph for convenience or reference: “We find, after giving our careful consideration that in case the appellant's argument is accepted by giving wider interpretation to the word “otherwise”, it would thwart the very object of the Act. In other words it would permit the filling of the vacancy occurring which was never advertised and a person in the select list panel, even though not applying for any vacancy, would be absorbed. Hence would be limiting the sphere of selection in contradiction to be object of the provision to draw larger applicants by advertising every vacancy to be filled in. Hence would be limiting the sphere of selection in contradiction to be object of the provision to draw larger applicants by advertising every vacancy to be filled in. we have no hesitation to say that any appointment to be made on a vacancy occurring in the succeeding year in question for which there is no advertisement under the provisions of sub-s.(4) of S.12, the person on the panel list of preceding academic year in question, cannot be absorbed or be appointed. The word “otherwise” has to be read as ejusdem generis that is to say in group similar to death, resignation, long leave vacancy, invalidation, person not joining after being duly selected. In other words, it would be a case of unforeseen vacancies which could not be conceived under S.12(2). S.12(2) conceives of a vacancy which is existing on the date the vacancy is to be advertised and which is likely to be caused in future but constricted for a period ending in the ensuing academic year in question. The words “likely to be caused” under S.12(2) are followed by the words “during the course of the ensuing academic year” that is any person likely to retire by the end of the academic year in question. In other words, such vacancies could be foreseen and not unforeseen. While vacancies under S.13(4) are unforeseen vacancies which fall under the group, death and/or resignation. Hence the word “otherwise” cannot be given the wide and liberal interpretation which would exclude large number of expected applicants who could be waiting to apply for the vacancies occurring in the succeeding year in question.” 11. From the above, it is obvious that the discussion made by the Apex Court and the observations are not at all applicable to the case in hand. That apart, it is to be noted that the petitioners did not have any such case in the O.A filed before the Tribunal, nor did they seek for any such relief so as to cause the notification to be set aside. This being the position, it is not open for them to take U-turn and say something else, for the first time before this Court, contrary to the pleadings and prayers raised before the Tribunal. This being the position, it is not open for them to take U-turn and say something else, for the first time before this Court, contrary to the pleadings and prayers raised before the Tribunal. That apart, in so far as the petitioners are interested parties who are aspirants to contest for the post pursuant to Annexure A3 notification, this petition cannot be treated or considered as a 'public interest litigation'. So far as the petitioners are not qualified to apply for the post, pursuant to Annexure A3, the challenge, if at all any, in respect of the notification is not liable to be considered by this Court in the present litigation. 12. The last submission made by the learned counsel is with reference to the alleged vagueness in Annexure A3 notification, particularly with reference to the number of vacancies. The position stands already answered in the previous paragraph. However, the petitioners sought to rely on a decision rendered by a single Bench of this Court (authored by one of us -P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.) to contend that when the notification is vague, a fresh notification has to be issued and selection has to be conducted accordingly. The reliance sought to be placed on the said verdict in W.P.(C)No.24279/2012 is quiet out of context. The said case was with reference to the situation caused by the PSC, adding something more with regard to the qualification after issuing the notification as to the eligibility, seeking to finalize the selection with reference to some other equivalent/higher qualification. It was accordingly made a mention that, if the eligibility to apply based on the equivalent/higher qualification was not mentioned in the notification, consideration of such qualification by the PSC at a later stage can never be given effect to. It was also held that, the Rules of the game could not be changed after commencement of the game. Reliance was sought to be placed on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in this regard in K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh [ (2008) 3 SCC 512 ]. No such situation is involved in the present case and no qualification was sought to be changed. Reliance was sought to be placed on the verdict passed by the Apex Court in this regard in K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh [ (2008) 3 SCC 512 ]. No such situation is involved in the present case and no qualification was sought to be changed. In so far as the petitioners are still to be awarded the Degree and are yet to obtain 'A' class registration pursuant to successful completion of the course, which includes the internship as well, they can never be regarded as qualified candidates as on the last date for submitting the applications, as notified. In the said circumstance, Ext.P2 verdict passed by the Tribunal is perfectly within the four walls of law and is not assailable under any circumstances. This Original Petition is devoid of merits. It is dismissed accordingly.