JUDGMENT : V. Ramasubramanian, J. Challenging a common order passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in a batch of Original Applications, directing the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Staff Selection Commission') to appoint the applicants before the Tribunal as Surveyors, the Staff Selection Commission has come up with these seven writ petitions. 2. We have heard Mr. B.C. Negi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Staff Selection Commission which is the petitioner in all these writ petitions, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State and Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who were applicants before the Tribunal. 3. By a Notification dated 16.5.2016, the Staff Selection Commission invited applications for appointment to various posts, in various departments of the Government. One of the posts included in the Notification for recruitment was the post of Surveyors, to be appointed on contract basis, in the Department of Industries and in the Department of Irrigation and Public Health. The post code allotted to the said post in the Department of Irrigation and Public Health was 527. The post code allotted to the said post in the Department of Industries was 488. 4. The essential qualifications prescribed in the Notification for recruitment to the post of surveyors in the Department of Irrigation and Public Health were (i) a pass in 10+2 examination from a recognized Board/University; and (ii) a certificate in the trade of Survey Work or its equivalent from a recognized I.T.I or from an Institute duly recognized by the Central/HP Government. The essential qualifications prescribed for recruitment to the post of surveyors in the Department of Industries were (i) Matric Examination or its equivalent from a recognized Board of School Education/Institution duly recognized by the Central/H.P. Government and (ii) two years Certificate Course in the trade of Survey Work from a recognized I.T.I/Institution duly recognized by the Central/H.P. Government 5. The post of Surveyor is in Class-III and is a Non-Gazetted State Cadre post. The post of Surveyor is in Class-III and is a Non-Gazetted State Cadre post. The Rules relating to recruitment and Promotion to the said post, in the department of Irrigation and Public Health, titled as "Himachal Pradesh Department of Irrigation and Public Health Surveyor Class-III (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2013"issued by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, also prescribe the very same qualifications as indicated in the Notification for recruitment, namely (i) a pass in 10+2 examination from a recognized Board/University; and (ii) a Certificate in the trade of Survey Work or its equivalent from a recognized I.T.I or from an Institute duly recognized by the Central/H.P. Government. 6. Similarly, the prescription in the notification, with regard to post of Surveyor in the department of Industries was also in tune with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Surveyors in the Department of Industries. 7. In response to the said Notification for recruitment, a lot of candidates, including those who were either Diploma Holders or Degree Holders in the discipline of Civil Engineering, also applied. The diploma/degree holders applied on the basis that they were holding a higher qualification in the same discipline and that therefore, there could be no bar. 8. On 25.9.2016, a written screening test was conducted and even the Diploma Holders and Degree Holders in Civil Engineering were allowed to participate in the written screening test. The results of this screening test were declared on 20.1.2017, and the short-listed candidates were invited for interview from 6.3.2017 to 9.3.2017. 9. But in the meantime, the applications of candidates holding a Diploma or Degree in Civil Engineering were rejected. Challenging the orders of rejection, a set of candidates filed Original Applications in O.A. Nos. 787, 801, 802, 823, 836, 942 and 1329 of 2017 on the file of the Tribunal. 10. By a common order dated 17.5.2018, the Tribunal allowed all the seven Applications, mainly on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K. vs. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596. It is against the said common order of the Tribunal dated 17.5.2018, passed in the aforesaid seven Applications, that the Staff Selection Commission has come up with the present batch of seven writ petitions. 11. There are no disputes on facts. It is against the said common order of the Tribunal dated 17.5.2018, passed in the aforesaid seven Applications, that the Staff Selection Commission has come up with the present batch of seven writ petitions. 11. There are no disputes on facts. It is admitted on both sides (i) that the Notification for recruitment as well as the Recruitment and Promotion Rules prescribe a pass in matriculation or its equivalent from a recognized Board of School Education/Institution duly recognized by the Central/H.P. Government and a two years Certificate Course in the trade of Survey Work from a recognized I.T.I/Institute duly recognized by the Central/H.P. Government for the post of Surveyors in the Department of Industries with post code No. 488 (ii) that the Notification for recruitment and the R&P Rules prescribe a pass in 10+2 examination from a recognized Board/University and a Certificate in the trade of Survey work or its equivalent from a recognized I.T.I or from a Institute duly recognized by the Central/H.P. Government, for appointment to the post of Surveyors in the Department of Irrigation and Public Health with post code No. 527; and (iii) that the respondents in these writ petitions, had either a Diploma in Civil Engineering or a Degree in Civil Engineering. 12. It is not the case of the respondents that they first completed a Certificate Course in the trade of Survey Work and thereafter went on to study a Diploma or Degree in Civil Engineering. Admittedly, after a pass in 10+2, the respondents had gone to a Diploma or Degree Course in Engineering. 13. As we have stated earlier, the main ground on which the Tribunal allowed the Original Applications of the respondents herein, was the ratio purportedly laid down by the apex Court in Jyoti K.K. But in Jyoti K.K. the essential technical qualifications prescribed by the Rules for recruitment to the post of Sub-Engineers (Electrical) in the Kerala State Electricity Board were (i) a Diploma in Electrical Engineering of a recognized Institution obtained after a 3 years course of study, or (ii) a Certificate in Electrical Engineering from any one of the recognized technical schools with five years of service in the Kerala State Electricity Board. The Kerala Public Service Commission rejected the applications of candidates who possessed a B. Tech. or B. Degree in Electrical Engineering. The Kerala Public Service Commission rejected the applications of candidates who possessed a B. Tech. or B. Degree in Electrical Engineering. But, the Supreme Court took note of Rule 10 (a) (ii) of Part I of Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1956, which clearly stipulated that the qualifications recognized by Executive Orders or Standing Orders of the Government as equivalent to a qualification stipulated in the special Rules as well as those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be considered as fulfillment of the eligibility criteria. Interestingly Rule 10 (a) (ii), though contained in the General Rules for State and Subordinate Services, also contained a non-obstante Clause. Rule 10 (a) (ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, extracted by the Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K reads as follows: "10.(a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognised 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." 14. It is relevant to note that the prescription contained in Rule 10 (a) (ii) of the General Rules, was notwithstanding anything contained even in the Special Rules. 15. The Supreme Court also observed in para-9 of its decision in Jyoti KK that the Special Rules did not contain any clause for exclusion of candidates who possessed higher qualifications. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the case of the Degree Holders in Engineering. 16. It is exactly for the above stated reasons that in a subsequent decision in State of Punjab vs. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 the Supreme Court distinguished the decision in Jyoti K.K. The distinction made in Anita, was relied upon by the Supreme Court in a more recent decision in Zahoor Ahmad Rather vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, 2019 2 SCC 404 . In fact in paragraph 25 of the report in Zahoor Ahmad, the Supreme Court made it clear that the hypothesis formulated in Jyoti K.K. as though the possession of a higher qualification would presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification, cannot be accepted in the absence of a statutory stipulation like the one contained in Rule 10(a) (ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. Again in para 26 of the report in Zahoor Ahmad, the Supreme Court reiterated that the decision in Jyoti K.K. turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a) (ii) of General Rules and that in the absence of such a Rule, it is not possible to draw an inference that a higher qualification presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification. The Supreme Court cautioned in Zahoor Ahmad that the prescription of qualifications for a post, is a matter of recruitment policy and that the State as the employer, is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. The Court cautioned that it is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. 17. Emphasis was laid by the Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad that the equivalence of qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. One of the important observations made by the Supreme Court in para 27 of the report in Zahoor Ahmad is that the State, as a public employer, may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. This observation assumes significance in the light of the fact that there are different layers of un-employed youth, with some dropping out of Schools, some abandoning studies after acquiring a Certificate Course, some pursuing a Diploma and a few pursing a Degree. If the State thinks that different job opportunities had to be created across the board, for all these sections of unemployed youth, the same cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the only ground on which the Tribunal allowed the Original Applications of the respondents herein, on the basis of ratio in Jyoti K.K cannot be upheld. It is true that the judgment of the Tribunal was rendered on 17.5.2018 and the decision in Zahoor Ahmad came on 5.12.2018. But Jyoti K.K. was not distinguished for the first time in Zahoor Ahmad. It is true that the judgment of the Tribunal was rendered on 17.5.2018 and the decision in Zahoor Ahmad came on 5.12.2018. But Jyoti K.K. was not distinguished for the first time in Zahoor Ahmad. It had already been distinguished in Anita which the Tribunal did not take note of. 18. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended (i) that even as per the reply filed by the State government, which is the employer, before the Tribunal, a person with higher qualifications is eligible for a post for which a lower qualification is prescribed if such higher qualification had been obtained in the same field (ii) that the syllabus for Degree/Diploma in Civil Engineering includes the syllabus prescribed for a Certificate Course in the trade of Survey Work (iii) that even as per the syllabus of semester system for the trade of survey, redesigned by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, a Diploma/Degree Holder in Civil Engineering is entitled to be appointed as Instructor for a one year Course in Survey Work (iv) that persons who hold a Certificate Course in the trade of Survey Work are allowed lateral entry, into a Diploma Course in Civil Engineering (v) that the R&P Rules not merely stipulate a Certificate in the trade of Survey Work, but also stipulate an equivalent qualification as essential qualification, but the word "equivalent" was not found in the Rules that the Supreme Court was concerned in Zahoor Ahmad (vi) that what is applicable to the case of the respondents is actually the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Parvaiz Ahmad Parry vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2015) 17 SCC 709 (vii) that the Government had already appointed Diploma Holders as Electricians and hence they cannot discriminate against the Surveyors (viii) that some Diploma Holders are already working as Surveyors and hence the respondents cannot be thrown out as ineligible and (ix) that in any case, 30% of the posts in the category of Junior Engineers are reserved for Surveyors, indicating thereby that persons who possess the essential qualifications for recruitment to a promotional post, cannot be said to be ineligible for a feeder category post. 19. 19. The first contention of the learned counsel for the respondents revolves around a statement contained in paragraph 2 of the reply filed by the Engineer-in-Chief of the I & PH Department, in O.A No.787 of 2017 before the Tribunal. All that was said by the Engineer-in-Chief in his reply before the Tribunal was that a person having a higher qualification becomes eligible for a post for which a lower qualification is prescribed, if such higher qualification had been obtained in the same field. After having said so, the Engineer-in-Chief also asserted in the very same paragraph of his reply that in the present matter, the fields of Surveyors and Civil Engineers are altogether different. The Engineer-in-Chief asserted further in his reply that the possession of a Degree in Civil Engineering cannot be treated as the possession of a qualification in the same field of Surveyors. Therefore, the reply filed by the Government before the Tribunal may not advance the cause of the respondents and hence the first contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is liable to be rejected. 20. The second contention revolves around the syllabus for the Certificate Course in the trade of Survey Work. But as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad, we are not experts to find out equivalence. Therefore, the second contention does not merit acceptance. 21. The third contention is to the effect that the Degree/Diploma Holders in Civil Engineering are entitled to be appointed as Instructors for a one year Certificate Course in Survey Work and that therefore, the exclusion of Degree/Diploma Holders will tantamount to exclusion of the teachers, while students are eligible. 22. Though this contention based on guru-sishya prescription appears to be very attractive on its face, it may not stand legal scrutiny. The qualifications prescribed for the post of Instructor for the trade of Surveyor under the "Craftsmen Training Scheme" are as follows: "NTC/NAC in the relevant trade with 3 years' post qualification experience or Diploma/Degree in Civil Engg. With 2/1 year's post qualification experience respectively." 23. First of all we do not know whether the trade of Surveyor under the Craftsmen Training Scheme designed by the Government of India is just the same as the Certificate Course in the trade of Survey Work that is prescribed by the R&P Rules of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. With 2/1 year's post qualification experience respectively." 23. First of all we do not know whether the trade of Surveyor under the Craftsmen Training Scheme designed by the Government of India is just the same as the Certificate Course in the trade of Survey Work that is prescribed by the R&P Rules of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. In any case, post qualification experience is also stipulated along with a Degree/Diploma in Civil Engineering, for appointment to the post of Instructors in the trade of Survey. Therefore, what is sought to be raised as the third contention, is just an over simplification of the issue and we are unable to uphold the same. 24. The fourth contention is about the eligibility of holders of a Certificate in the trade, for lateral entry into Diploma Courses. But the fact that a Certificate Holder is entitled to be admitted to a Diploma Course, may not make the holder of a Diploma, a person holding the essential qualifications. There are different parameters (i) for higher studies; and (ii) for appointment to a post. One cannot be mixed up with the other. In fact, the very same contention appears to have been raised in Zahoor Ahmad before the Supreme Court, as seen from para 11.2 but it was not accepted by the Supreme Court. 25. The fifth contention revolves around the expression "equivalent" found in the R&P Rules of the State of Himachal Pradesh and the absence of such an expression in the R&P Rules that formed the subject matter of the decision of the supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad. But we do not think that such an artificial distinction can be made of the decision in Zahoor Ahmad. The decision in Zahoor Ahmad makes it clear that the equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. 26. The next contention of the learned counsel for the respondents revolves around the judgment of the Supreme Court in Parvaiz Ahmad Parry. But in the said case, the facts were clearly loaded in favour of the individuals. The Recruitment Rules prescribed the qualification of a Degree in Forestry or equivalent. The candidate before the Court had acquired a BSc Degree with Forestry as one of the subjects and he had also acquired a Post Graduate Degree, namely M.Sc. in Forestry itself. But in the said case, the facts were clearly loaded in favour of the individuals. The Recruitment Rules prescribed the qualification of a Degree in Forestry or equivalent. The candidate before the Court had acquired a BSc Degree with Forestry as one of the subjects and he had also acquired a Post Graduate Degree, namely M.Sc. in Forestry itself. Therefore, the decision in Parvaiz Ahmad Parry cannot go to the rescue of the respondents. 27. The next two contentions relate to the appointment of Diploma Holders as Electricians and some Diploma Holders as Surveyors. But we do not think that any appointment made in contravention of the Statutory Rules can be taken as a precedent. 28. The last contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that 30% of the posts of Junior Engineers are reserved for Surveyors and that therefore, what holds good as a qualification for a promotional post will equally hold good for a feeder category post. 29. But we do not think so. A Surveyor with sufficient number of years of experience may be treated by the Recruitment Rules to be eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer. It does not mean that a person who is eligible for appointment as Junior Engineer should be considered as eligible for appointment to a feeder category post. The only task of the Courts in such cases is to find out whether a candidate fulfills the qualifications prescribed by the Recruitment Rules or not. The moment it is found that a candidate does not fulfill the qualifications as stipulated in the Statutory Rules, the lis should come to an end. This is the moral of the story behind the decision in Zahoor Ahmad. Therefore, the Tribunal was wrong in relying upon the decision in Jyoti K.K. Hence the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly these writ petitions are allowed, the common order of the Tribunal passed in the Applications filed by the respondents herein is set aside and the Original Applications filed by the respondents herein shall stand dismissed. Pending applications, if any also stand disposed of.