JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who is an Ex-Serviceman is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents to select and appoint him as Sub Inspector of Police in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) despite possession of qualifications as prescribed in the notification. 2. Petitioner was discharged from Indian Army on completion of 18 years of service, on 01.06.2012. He is an Ex-Serviceman with an Army Graduation Certificate Ext.P1, issued on 31.05.2012. Pursuant to Ext.P3 notification issued by the Staff Selection Commission on 28.03.2015, petitioner submitted application for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector in CISF which comes under the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). Ext.P3 was a notice for recruitment of Sub Inspectors in Delhi Police and CAPFs and Assistant Sub-Inspector in CISF. The post of Sub Inspector in CAPFs was notified as one classified as Group B non Gazetted, non-ministerial with pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 in Pay Band 2 with grade pay of Rs.4200/-. ASI in CISF was classified as Group C with pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.2800/-. Number of vacancies of SI in CISF reserved for Ex-Servicemen was notified as 54 and of ASIs as 110. It was specified that age relaxation would be available to candidates which included Ex-Serviceman also. Note V of paragraph 4B in Ext.P3 reads as follows: NOTE V: A matriculate Ex-Serviceman (which term includes an Ex-Serviceman, who has obtained the Indian Army Special Certificate of education or corresponding certificate in the Navy or the Air Force), who has put in not less than 15 years of service as on closing date with Armed Forces of the Union shall be considered eligible for appointment to the posts being advertised through this examination. Thus, those non- graduate ex-servicemen who have not completed 15 years of service as on the last date for receipt of applications as stated in Note-III under para 4(B) are not eligible. 3. As per Note V of paragraph 4B of Ext.P3, petitioner who was having Ext.P1 Army Graduation Certificate was duly qualified for appointment of SI and for all posts notified in Ext.P3 notice. On being successful in both the examinations conducted on 21.06.2015 and 30.08.2015, petitioner received call letter to appear for certificate verification. 3. As per Note V of paragraph 4B of Ext.P3, petitioner who was having Ext.P1 Army Graduation Certificate was duly qualified for appointment of SI and for all posts notified in Ext.P3 notice. On being successful in both the examinations conducted on 21.06.2015 and 30.08.2015, petitioner received call letter to appear for certificate verification. When he reported for the same he was told that he was not eligible for appointment as SI and that his candidature can be considered only for the post of ASI. With much objection, he appeared for the interview and thereafter he was appointed as ASI in CISF as per Ext.P5 order on 30.08.2016. After undergoing training, he joined as ASI on 09.03.2017. The petitioner points out that during the training period, he came to know that several of the persons who were undergoing training for the post of SIs were having only Army Graduate Certificate. It was pointed out that one Sri.Pankaj Kumar, serial no.2 in Ext.P6 list of Ex-servicemen appointed as SI, was having only the Army Graduate Certificate, as evident from his qualification mentioned therein. The petitioner also pointed out that 17 such candidates have been appointed as SI on the basis of their Army Graduate Certificate in the previous selection conducted pursuant to Ext.P7 notification of 2014. It was stated that M/s.Amit Agrawal and Jagath Raj, who were serial No.2 and 6 in Ext.P8 list therein got appointment as SI though they were also having only Army Graduation Certificates. This Writ Petition is filed in the above background seeking a declaration that petitioner is eligible for appointment as SI as per Ext.P3 notification based on Ext.P1 certificate. 4. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the post of SI in CAPF including CISF is a group B post whereas that Delhi Police is a group C post as in the case of ASI in CISF. It is stated that Army Graduation Certificate is not sufficient qualification for the said appointment and that a Degree from a recognised University or equivalent is the requisite qualification. It is stated that Army Graduation Certificate is not sufficient qualification for the said appointment and that a Degree from a recognised University or equivalent is the requisite qualification. Producing Ext.R1(a) Notification-Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979, it was stated that the Army Graduation certificate issued by Indian Army, to those who have put in not less than 15 years of service in armed forces in accordance with Ext.R1(a) rules would be sufficient only for appointment to Group posts, where graduation is the qualification. Therefore it was contended that Ext.P1 certificate which was issued by the Indian Army on the basis of Government of India, Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) O.M No.150 12/8/82/Estt/(D) dated 12.02.1986 which provides that armed force personnel who obtained Indian Army Special Certificate of Education and who have put in not less that 15 years of service in the Armed Force Service may be considered eligible for appointment to the reserved vacancies in Group Y post for which essential qualification is graduation and where experience of technical or professional nature is not essential, would not be the qualification sufficient for appointment as SI which is a group B post. 5. In the statement filed by the learned Central Government Counsel thereafter it was stated that in Annexure.R1(a) Rules-Central Industrial Security Force, Security Wing, Sub Inspector (Executive) Recruitment Rules, 2013 published in gazette of Government of India, which governs the appointment of SIs in CISF, Sub Inspector (Executive) is classified as General Central Service Group B -non gazetted non ministerial and it is a selection post in the pay band 2 with pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 and grade pay of Rs.4200. The educational qualification for Ex- Serviceman provided in its schedule is as follows: II. For Ex-servicemen: Retired or released Army Personnel who have held the substantive rank of Subedar major, Subedar and equivalent rank in the Army, Navy and Air Force (those holding equivalency honorary ranks will not be eligible) and who fulfill the requirements, namely:- An Ex-serviceman possessing Bachelor's degree and the Indian Army Special Certificate of Education or corresponding certificate in the Navy or Air Force and not less than fifteen years of service as on closing date with Armed Forces of the Union shall be considered eligible for appointment to the posts being advertised. 6. 6. Therefore it is stated that petitioner who was in the rank below that of Subedar Major and was not holding any of the ranks specified in the rules was not eligible for appointment in the Ex-Servicemen quota and even for them they should have a Bachelors Degree and Indian Army Special Certificate of Education and not less than 15 years' service. At the same time the essential educational qualification for general candidates is a Bachelor's Degree of a recognised University or equivalent. 7. Seeing that several persons were appointed as SIs with only Army Graduation certificate, this Court called for the list of such persons appointed in CISF. Respondents filed a statement dated 17.01.2019 stating that Sri.Pankaj Kumar was having an associate Degree also awarded by IGNOU, in addition to the Army Graduation Certificate. Petitioner thereupon produced Ext P15-Associate Degree awarded to petitioner from IGNOU and stated that petitioner would also be eligible for appointment as SI as in the case of Pankajkumar. 8. The respondents filed an affidavit dated 01.03.2019 stating that 11 candidates having either Army Graduation Certificate/Associate Degree from IGNOU, which is not in line with the DOP&T guidelines were selected against group B posts, pursuant to 2016 notification issued by SSC and that on noticing that error, they revised the results of examinations 2016. It was stated that the Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules were amended as per Ext.R1(d) notification dated 04.10.2012 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension. In this affidavit they stated that 11 candidates were having Army Graduate Certificate/ Associate Degree from IGNOU which was not in line with the DOP&T OM, were selected against group B posts pursuant to the recruitment of SI in Delhi Police, CAPFs and ASI in CISF Examination – 2016. It was stated that results of those 11 candidates have already been revised by the Staff Selection Commission as per Ext.R1(c) letter. On the basis of the query from this Court, the respondents stated that amendment has been carried out to the Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Service and Posts) Rules, 1979, by Ext.R1(d) Amendment Rules, 2012 as per notification dated 04.10.2012. Rule 3 has been substituted, making it applicable to all the Central Civil Services and Posts and the posts upto the level of Assistant Commandant in all para-military forces. Rule 3 has been substituted, making it applicable to all the Central Civil Services and Posts and the posts upto the level of Assistant Commandant in all para-military forces. Sub Rule (1) of Rule 4 is substituted reserving 10% of the vacancies upto the level of Assistant Commandant in all para military forces, 10% of the vacancies in Group C posts and 25% of the vacancies in group D posts for Ex- servicemen. 9. The 4th respondent filed an additional affidavit dated 18.09.2019, furnishing the details of 10 persons who were appointed in CISF, on the basis of their Army Graduation Certificate pursuant to Exts.P3 and P7 notifications. It is stated that 8 persons were appointed on the basis of SI-CPO examination conducted in 2014 and 2 persons were appointed pursuant to SI-CPO examination 2015. In this affidavit they stated that the holders of Army Graduation Certificate or Associate Degree from IGNOU are not eligible for appointment to Group B posts. They stated that necessary action would be taken to revise the results of those ineligible hands. 10. Smt.Dhanya Asokan, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Staff Selection Commission had adopted a strange attitude towards the claim of petitioner with respect to the appointment of SIs. Relying on the judgment in Chief Executive Officer, NSSO and others vs. Biswa Bhusan Nandi : 2008 KHC 5114 she argued that the petitioner is entitled to get appointment, since he was fully qualified in accordance with the notification. In that judgment the apex court was considering the claim of an Ex- Serviceman for appointment as Data Entry Operator under the provisions of Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Service and Posts) Rules, 1979. She argued that the said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and therefore petitioner is also liable to be appointed especially when there are sufficient number of vacancies reserved for Ex-servicemen are available. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.P.No.4248/2017 dated 13.12.2017 and in W.A.No.1295/2012 dated 12.03.2013 respectively in which the Ex-Serviceman (Reservation of Vacancies in the State Civil Services and Posts Class-III and Class-IV) Rules, 1985 were considered and it was found that Army Graduate Certificate is equivalent to Graduation. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.P.No.4248/2017 dated 13.12.2017 and in W.A.No.1295/2012 dated 12.03.2013 respectively in which the Ex-Serviceman (Reservation of Vacancies in the State Civil Services and Posts Class-III and Class-IV) Rules, 1985 were considered and it was found that Army Graduate Certificate is equivalent to Graduation. 11. On the other hand the learned Standing Counsel Sri.Suvin.R.Menon relying on the judgments in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi 2009 (4) SCC 577 and State of Bihar vs. Upendra narayan Singh & Ors : JT 2009 (4) SC 577 argued that an illegality cannot be perpetuated by the Court when the appointment is governed by Recruitment Rules which require qualifications which the petitioner does not possess and that there cannot be any direction from this Court to make appointments. 12. I have considered the contentions on both sides. 13. Qualification for appointment of Sub Inspectors in CISF is governed by the Recruitment Rules Ann.R1 for the post of SI (Executive) in CISF, 2013. It is seen that Ex-Servicemen are required to have more educational qualification than the general candidates, as per Annexure R1(a) Recruitment Rules issued in 2013. When general candidates require only graduation from recognised university as essential educational qualification, Ex-Servicemen require Army Graduation Certificate in addition to graduation from recognised University, apart from 15 years service in Armed Forces. It also limits the consideration of Ex- Servicemen to only those who held the substantive rank of Subedar Major and Subedar. Petitioner was not in the rank of Subedar. Therefore going by the Annexure.R1 Recruitment Rules petitioner is not eligible for consideration. Petitioner claims appointment on the basis of the qualification prescribed in Ext.P3 notification which provided that the Army Graduation Certificate would be sufficient qualification for Ex-Servicemen. Petitioner also claims appointment based on appointments granted to others having only Army Graduation Certificate. It is necessary to have a look at the certificate Ext.P1 and the rules under which it is issued. 14. Petitioner also claims appointment based on appointments granted to others having only Army Graduation Certificate. It is necessary to have a look at the certificate Ext.P1 and the rules under which it is issued. 14. Ext.P1 certificate issued to the petitioner certified that Ex-Servicemen who are matriculates (which term include Ex-Servicemen who have obtained the Indian Army Special Certificate of Education or the corresponding certificate in the Navy or Air Force) and has put in not less than 15 years of service in the Armed Forces of the Union may be considered eligible for appointment to and reserved vacancy in Group Y posts for which essential qualification is graduation and where experience of technical and professional nature is not essential. As per the certificate petitioner who served 18 years in Indian Army was made eligible to be considered educationally qualified for reserved Group Y posts. The respondents do not have a case that the post of SI requires any technical knowledge. Ext.P1 certificate is issued in accordance with Ext.R1(a) Rules issued by the Department of Personnel and Training under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Sub Rule 4 was inserted in Rule 6 of the Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules 1979, by the amendment Rules, 1986 [Ext.R1(a) Rules], which provided that for appointment to any reserved vacancy in group C posts, a matriculate Ex-serviceman (which term includes an Ex- Serviceman, who has obtained the Indian Army Special Certificate of Education or the corresponding certificate in the Navy or Air Force), who has put in not less than 15 years of service in the Armed Forces of the Union, may be considered eligible for appointment to the posts for which essential qualification is graduation and where experience of technical and professional nature is not essential. Originally the objection against the claim of the petitioner was that Ext.P1 certificate can be treated as an equivalent qualification only for group C post and it would not be sufficient for appointment as SI, which is a group B post. It is seen that by Ext.P11/Ext.R1(d) Amendment Rules issued in 2012, 10% reservation is provided to Ex-Servicemen to posts upto the level of Assistant Commandants. Ex-Serviceman means a person served in any rank whether as combatant or non-combatant in the Armed Forces. It is seen that by Ext.P11/Ext.R1(d) Amendment Rules issued in 2012, 10% reservation is provided to Ex-Servicemen to posts upto the level of Assistant Commandants. Ex-Serviceman means a person served in any rank whether as combatant or non-combatant in the Armed Forces. But no amendment is seen made to the provisions in Rule 6 which makes the Army Graduation Certificate sufficient for the posts upto Assistant Commandant or for any post for which graduation is the essential qualification in group B or group A. Annexure.R1 Recruitment Rules of SI (Executive) in CISF imposes another condition also for Ex-Serviceman, stating that they should have held the substantive rank of Subedar Major, Subedar and equivalent in Army, Navy or Air Force. Therefore as the rules made available before this Court, petitioner who was not a Subedar would not be eligible to be considered for appointment as SI even if his Army Graduation Certificate is treated as equivalent to the essential qualification. Apart from that Annexure.R1 Rules prescribe that the Ex-Subedars-the eligible Ex- Serviceman should have Army Graduation Certificate along with 15 years of service in Armed Forces in addition to graduation. It is not clear why such additional qualifications are prescribed for the Ex- Servicemen. At any rate these are matters to be considered by the Ministry of Personnel and Grievance Cell which has issued the rules for reservation of Ex- Servicemen – Ext.R1(a)/Ext.P11 Rules, etc. 15. Though it is seen that petitioner is a person having the qualification prescribed in Ext.P3 notification and certain appointments are granted to those having only the Army Graduation certificates, appointments can be directed to be made only in accordance with rules. When the post in question is governed by Recruitment Rules, Articles 14 and 16 demands that appointments are made strictly in accordance with such rules. Any appointment made contrary to the Recruitment Rules is illegal. The respondents ought to have issued the notification also in tune with the Recruitment Rules. When the post in question is governed by Recruitment Rules, Articles 14 and 16 demands that appointments are made strictly in accordance with such rules. Any appointment made contrary to the Recruitment Rules is illegal. The respondents ought to have issued the notification also in tune with the Recruitment Rules. Though it is seen that injustice is done to petitioner, and that the respondents-Staff Selection Commission as well as the CISF have not followed the Recruitment Rules uniformly on all candidates in the process of selection and appointment, this Court will not be justified in issuing any direction to the respondents to make appointments contrary to the Recruitment Rules for the reason that they have not followed the recruitment rules at least in 10 cases in CISF alone pursuant to Ext.P3 notification. This court is not expected to perpetuate illegalities. 16. The judgments relied on by Smt.Dhanya relates to appointments where graduation alone was required as per the recruitment rules and there was no condition regarding the rank to be held by the Ex-Servicemen. All those posts were Group C posts and Rule 6(4) of Ext.R1(a) Rules provided that the Army Graduation Certificate was sufficient for appointment to any post in Group C for which graduation is the essential qualification. Though the post of SI was originally in Group C, after its reclassification as Group B, no amendment is seen made to Rule 6(4) of Ext.R1 rules. Therefore, those judgments would not apply to the facts of this case. 17. It is seen that the Staff Selection Commission which is constituted for the purpose of finding out the most meritorious candidates for appointment to various posts under the Government of India after conducting the selection strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules/executive orders in force, have miserably failed to perform the duties entrusted to it by conducting the selection in a thoroughly irresponsible manner, contrary to the rules, defeating the very confidence reposed in them by a large number of unemployed youths in the country. The selection and appointment should be conducted in accordance with law consistent with Article 14 and 16. When the petitioner pointed out the illegality in denial of appointment to him, the respondents have come out admitting their mistakes which shows that several candidates who do not have the qualification which they insisted in the case of petitioner, have been appointed in CISF alone. When the petitioner pointed out the illegality in denial of appointment to him, the respondents have come out admitting their mistakes which shows that several candidates who do not have the qualification which they insisted in the case of petitioner, have been appointed in CISF alone. Therefore, it is clear that the Staff Selection Commission was adopting different yardsticks in different regions/states for the very same selection pursuant to the very same notification, when it should be only in accordance with Rules. It is pertinent to note that the Recruitment Rules were amended as early as in 2013, whereas Ext.P3 notification was issued in the year 2015. The selection commission as well as the appointing authority CISF are equally irresponsible in their indifferent approach in the selection process. 18. The respondents are expected to be vigilant in issuing notifications and conducting the process of recruitment. Making appointments contrary to law is fraud on the constitution. When it is done in and by the disciplined force and through the Staff Selection Commission having jurisdiction all over India, they have to be dealt with properly, in order to see that such instances are not repeated. The illegalities in the selection and appointment to disciplined forces like CISF could be unearthed at the instance of the petitioner or otherwise it would have continued as they did even in 2016 selection. There is no answer for the respondents for committing such mistakes in the process of selection. In the circumstances I deem it appropriate to impose cost on respondents 1 and 3. They shall remit a sum of Rs.25,000/-each with the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.