JUDGMENT : Gopinath, J. These original petitions have been filed by challenging the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in OA No.2473/2016. OP (KAT) No.319/2018 is filed by the 6th respondent in OA No.2473/2016 while OP (KAT) 466/2019 has been filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission, the 1st respondent in OA No.2473/2016. 2. The facts fall within a very narrow compass and may be briefly noticed. The Kerala Public Service Commission issued a notification for filling up of vacancies of Tradesman in various trades including that of Welding in the Technical Education Department. The qualification prescribed for the post of Tradesman is 'a pass in Technical High School Leaving Certificate Examination or (I) pass in Secondary School Leaving Certificate or equivalent (ii) National Trade Certificate in the appropriate trade/pass in Vocational Higher Secondary Certificate Course in the appropriate trade/pass in Kerala Government Certificate in Engineering Examination in the appropriate trade. 3. The applicant before the Tribunal (who is the 1st respondent in both these original petitions) was qualified in terms of the notification. On publication of the ranked list, the applicant/1st respondent noticed that persons holding Graduate Degree in Engineering have been included in the list. Therefore he approached the Tribunal. It was specifically pointed out that the 6th respondent before the Tribunal who holds a Bachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering is included in the main list as a Viswakarma candidate while the applicant/1st respondent was included in the supplementary list for Viswakarma as rank No.1. The 6th respondent before the Tribunal has been advised and appointed and if he is excluded the applicant/1st respondent herein will be eligible for advice and appointment is the case projected before the Tribunal. On a consideration of the matter and after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jyothi K.K and others v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15SCC596 and the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Suma v. Kerala Public Service Commission, 2011(1) KLT 1 the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the consideration and inclusion of Engineering Graduates in the ranked list was illegal. The Tribunal, therefore, directed that the ranked list shall be recast by excluding the candidates possessing Graduate qualification and also directed cancellation of advice memos issued to the ineligible candidates. The Tribunal, therefore, directed that the ranked list shall be recast by excluding the candidates possessing Graduate qualification and also directed cancellation of advice memos issued to the ineligible candidates. It was also directed that after recast of the rank list, advice memos shall be issued to eligible persons after following the turn and reservation principles. The petitioners in these cases (The Public Service Commission and the 6th respondent in the O.A) contend, in the main, that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law and ignored the binding precedent in Jyothi (supra). 4. We have heard Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala Public Service Commission, Sri. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in OP (KAT) 319/2018 and Sri. E.N. Vishnu Namboodiri, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/applicant before the Tribunal. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission and the learned counsel for the petitioner in OP (KAT) No.319/2018 would contend that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down in Jyothi and that the Tribunal wrongly applied the ratio of the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Suma v. KPSC (supra). It is submitted that the failure to mention that the provisions of Rule 10 (a) (ii) of the KS & SSR were applicable, in the notification, did not mean that the said Rule was inapplicable. It is also submitted that following the issuance of circular 27/2014, on 10-08-2014 by the PSC, all notifications invariably state that the said Rule would be applicable to the selection and that this was not on account of the fact that the non-mentioning of the Rule would render the Rule inapplicable, but on account of the desire to avoid any interference by the Tribunal/Court in the selection on the ground that there was a failure to mention the applicability of the Rule. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/applicant before the Tribunal would support the view taken by the Tribunal and contend that the law on the point is now settled in his favour as the decision in Jyothi (supra) has been subsequently distinguished by the Supreme Court in two recent judgments namely in Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others, (2019) 2 SCC 404 and in Ajith K. v. Aneesh K.S and others, 2019 KHC 6830. He would also submit that there was no occasion for the Commission to accept candidature of persons with Graduate Degree in Engineering since there was no mention of the fact that Rule 10 (a) (ii) of Part II of KS & SSR would be applicable to the selection. 5. The issue arising for our consideration in these cases has engaged the attention of the Supreme Court on earlier occasions. In P.M. Latha and another v. State of Kerala and others, (2003) 3 SCC 541 the issue was in relation to qualifications for the post of Lower Primary and Upper Primary Teachers in Government Schools in a selection through the Kerala Public Service Commission. The prescribed qualification for the post was a pass in SSLC Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala, or any other equivalent qualification and a pass in TTC conducted by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Kerala or pass in pre-degree of Kerala University with Pedagogy as an optional subject or pass in basic TTC examination (Malayalam) conducted by the Government of Madras or pass in Malayalam Vidhvan Examination. The question that arose for consideration was whether persons having B.Ed qualification could be considered for appointment. It was held:- "We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by the respondents that B.Ed. qualification is a higher qualification than TTC and therefore, the B.Ed. candidates should be held to be eligible to compete for the post. On behalf of appellants, it is pointed out before us that Trained Teachers Certificate is given to teachers specially trained to teach small children in primary classes whereas for B.Ed. degree, the training imparted is to teach students of classes above primary. B.Ed. degree holders, therefore, cannot necessarily be held to be holding qualification suitable for appointment as teachers in primary schools. Whether for a particular post, the source of recruitment should be from the candidates with TTC qualification or B.Ed. qualification, is a matter of recruitment policy. We find sufficient logic and justification in the State prescribing qualification for post of primary teachers as only TTC and not B.Ed. Whether B.Ed. qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed. candidates, for the present vacancies advertised, as eligible." Yogesh Kumar and others v. Govt. Whether B.Ed. qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed. candidates, for the present vacancies advertised, as eligible." Yogesh Kumar and others v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi and others, (2003) 3 SCC 548 which was heard and decided along with P.M Latha (supra) held:- "5. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment has dealt with the above two arguments in great detail. In our considered opinion, it has rightly come to the conclusion that BEd qualification, although a well-recognised qualification in the field of teaching and education being not prescribed in the advertisement, only some of the BEd candidates who took a chance to apply for the post cannot be given entry in the field of selection. We also find that the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that teacher training imparted to teachers for BEd course equips them for teaching higher classes. A specialized training given to teachers for teaching small children at primary level cannot be compared with training given for awarding BEd degree. Merely because primary teachers can also earn promotion to the post of teachers to teach higher classes and for which BEd is the prescribed qualification, it cannot be held that BEd is a higher qualification than TTC. Looking to the different nature of TTC qualification, the High Court rightly held that it is not comparable with BEd degree qualification and the latter cannot be treated as higher qualification to the former." Further in paragraph 8 of that judgment, it was observed:- "8. This last argument advanced also does not impress us at all. Recruitment to public services should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any. Deviation from the rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post......." The question was then considered by the Supreme Court in Jyothi (supra), on which considerable reliance has been placed by the petitioners in these cases. The fact situation in Jyothi was that the Kerala Public Service Commission had invited applications for selection to the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) in the KSEB. The qualifications prescribed in the notification were as follows (as extracted from paragraph 2 of the judgment of the Supreme Court):- “1. SSLC or its equivalent. 2. The fact situation in Jyothi was that the Kerala Public Service Commission had invited applications for selection to the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) in the KSEB. The qualifications prescribed in the notification were as follows (as extracted from paragraph 2 of the judgment of the Supreme Court):- “1. SSLC or its equivalent. 2. Technical qualifications— (a) Diploma in Electrical Engineering of a recognised institution after 3 years' course of study, or (b) a certificate in Electrical Engineering from any one of the recognised technical schools shown below with five years' service under the Kerala State Electricity Board, [Not fully extracted as not relevant] or (c) MGTE/KGTE in electrical light and power (higher) with five years' experience as IInd Grade Overseer (Electrical) under the Board.” The question considered was whether persons holding B.Tech Degree in Electrical Engineering could be considered for appointment. The Kerala Public Service Commission took the view that B.Tech holders were not eligible to be considered. The contention taken by the B.Tech holders was that they possess higher qualification and further that persons with such higher qualification had earlier been considered for appointment by the KSEB. After referring to Rule 10 (a) (ii) of Part II KS & SSR it was held as follows; "5. On the question that the said Rules are applicable to the selection posts in the Board, there is no dispute. The High Court after setting out the contentions noticed that there were no executive orders in relation to the equivalent qualifications prescribed by the Government. The High Court stated that the position is that the qualifications possessed by the appellants do not presuppose the acquisition of prescribed lower qualifications and when qualifications have been prescribed for a post, the same cannot be diluted and persons not possessing those qualifications cannot be permitted to be eligible. It was noticed that all those who had similar or even better qualifications than those candidates would not have applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement and such a position would result in “fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications, in such circumstances, unless it is clearly stated that qualifications are relaxable”. On that basis the High Court dismissed the petitions filed by the appellants. The contentions urged before the High Court are reiterated on either side before us. 6. Rule 10(a)(ii) reads as follows: “10. On that basis the High Court dismissed the petitions filed by the appellants. The contentions urged before the High Court are reiterated on either side before us. 6. Rule 10(a)(ii) 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.” 7. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant Rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The High Court is also justified in stating that the higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for that post in order to attract that part of the Rule to the effect that such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. If a person has acquired higher qualifications in the same Faculty, such qualifications can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In this case it may not be necessary to seek far. (Emphasis is ours) 8. Under the relevant Rules, for the post of Assistant Engineer, degree in Electrical Engineering of Kerala University or other equivalent qualification recognised or equivalent thereto has been prescribed. For a higher post when a direct recruitment has to be held, the qualification that has to be obtained, obviously gives an indication that such qualification is definitely higher qualification than what is prescribed for the lower post, namely, the post of Sub-Engineer. In that view of the matter the qualification of degree in Electrical Engineering presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification of diploma in that subject prescribed for the post, shall be considered to be sufficient for that post. 9. In that view of the matter the qualification of degree in Electrical Engineering presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification of diploma in that subject prescribed for the post, shall be considered to be sufficient for that post. 9. In the event the Government is of the view that only diploma-holders should have applied to post of Sub-Engineers but not all those who possess higher qualifications, either this Rule should have excluded in respect of candidates who possess higher qualifications or the position should have been made clear that degree-holder shall not be eligible to apply for such post. When that position is not clear but on the other hand the Rules do not disqualify per se the holders of higher qualifications in the same Faculty, it becomes clear that the Rule could be understood in an appropriate manner as stated above. In that view of the matter the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. In this case we are not concerned with the question whether all those who possess such qualifications could have applied or not. When statutory Rules have been published and those Rules are applicable, it presupposes that everyone concerned with such appointments will be aware of such Rules or make himself aware of the Rules before making appropriate applications. The High Court, therefore, is not justified in holding that recruitment of the appellants would amount to fraud on the public." It is on the basis of these findings in Jyothi that it is vehemently urged before us that the post of Tradesman (Welder) comes under the Mechanical Stream and that in the departmental hierarchy the post of Tradesman is feeder category for promotion as Workshop Instructor and the next promotion is to the post of Workshop Supervisor/Manager for which the qualification prescribed is B.Tech and therefore that the conditions prescribed by the latter part of Rule 10(a)(ii) are satisfied, especially in the light of the findings in Jyothi. 6. The issue again came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Anita and others, (2015) 2 SCC 170 . 6. The issue again came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Anita and others, (2015) 2 SCC 170 . In that case the question was whether persons having M.Sc/M.Com/M.A qualifications could apply for the post of JBT/ETT in an aided Senior Secondary School in the State of Punjab when the qualification prescribed was matriculation with two years course in JBT training and knowledge of Punjabi and Hindi language of matriculation standard or its equivalent. The Supreme Court referred to P.M. Latha (supra), Yogesh Kumar (supra) and Jyothi (supra) and held as follows; "14. To be fair to the learned counsel for the private respondents, we may also make a reference to the decision rendered by this Court in Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission. The learned counsel had invited our attention to para 7 thereof, wherein it was observed as under: (SCC p. 598)" After extracting paragraph 7 of the judgment in Jyothi's case which we have already extracted hereinabove it was held:- "It is no doubt true, that this Court held in the aforestated judgment, that if a person had acquired higher qualifications in the same faculty, such qualifications can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification. Possession of the higher qualification would therefore, according to the learned counsel, make a candidate eligible for the post, even though, the candidate does not possess the prescribed qualification. The question however is, whether the above position can be applied to the present case?" "15. It was sought to be asserted on the basis of the aforesaid observations, that since the private respondents possess higher qualifications, than the qualification of JBT/ETT, they should be treated as having fulfilled the qualification stipulated for the posts of JBT/ETT Teachers. It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the private respondents, because the statutory rules which were taken into consideration by this Court while recording the aforesaid observations in Jyoti K.K. case, permitted the aforesaid course. It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the private respondents, because the statutory rules which were taken into consideration by this Court while recording the aforesaid observations in Jyoti K.K. case, permitted the aforesaid course. The statutory rule, in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the private respondents, is extracted hereunder: (SCC p. 598, para 6)" (Emphasis is ours) After extracting Rule 10(a)(ii) of Part II of the KS&SSR it was observed:- "A perusal of the Rule clearly reveals that the possession of higher qualification would presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the posts. Insofar as the present controversy is concerned, there is no similar statutory provision authorising the appointment of persons with higher qualifications. 16. Moreover, in view of the decision rendered by this Court in P.M. Latha case and in Yogesh Kumar case lead to the clear and unambiguous conclusion that none of the private respondents could be considered as eligible for selection or appointment to the advertised posts of JBT/ETT Teachers." 7. In Zahoor Ahmad (supra) the question considered was whether persons having Diploma could be considered for appointment as Technician-III for which the prescribed qualification was matriculation with ITI. The Supreme Court specifically noticed the fact that for the post of Junior Engineer which is a higher post to that of Technician-III the qualification prescribed was either a Bachelor Degree in Engineering or a Diploma (Electrical). In the facts of that case, persons with Diploma qualification were considered for selection initially. However the Jammu and Kashmir State Service Selection Board decided later that only persons holding ITI qualifications in the relevant trade should be considered. This decision of the Board was challenged by the Diploma holders. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition on the premise that the decision of the Board to exclude the Diploma holders was taken after the selection process had started and therefore such decision could not affect the Diploma holders who had validly taken part in the selection. A Division Bench reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge relying on the ratio of the judgment in P.M. Latha (supra). Before the Supreme Court reliance was placed on the judgment in Jyothi (supra) to contend that a higher qualification presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post. A Division Bench reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge relying on the ratio of the judgment in P.M. Latha (supra). Before the Supreme Court reliance was placed on the judgment in Jyothi (supra) to contend that a higher qualification presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post. It was held:- "The learned Single Judge was persuaded to accept the submissions of the petitioners who had moved the writ petition primarily on two grounds. The first was that the Board had changed the rules in the midst of the selection process. In holding thus, the learned Single Judge was clearly in error. The Board did not bring about any change in the rules or the norms governing the selection midstream. There was no deviation from prescribed requirement for the post, of ITI with Matric. In fact the Board resolved to adhere to the qualification which was prescribed in the advertisement. An anomalous situation had arisen as a consequence of which, despite the prescribed qualifications, interviews of diploma-holders had been conducted in some districts. This was plainly in breach of the conditions of the advertisement and was rectified by the Board. The second ground which weighed with the learned Single Judge was that the holder of a diploma is eligible for the higher post of Junior Engineer and hence a candidate who holds a diploma must be “presupposed” to hold the lower qualification of an ITI. This line of reasoning appears to be based on the judgment of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Jyoti K.K.(supra). Before adverting to the decision in Jyoti K.K., it would be necessary to advert to some of the decisions of this Court on the subject." Thereafter referring to P.M. Latha (supra) & Yogesh Kumar (supra) it was held:- "The decision in Jyoti K.K. has been considered in a judgment of two learned Judges in State of Punjab v. Anita. In that case, applications were invited for JBT/ETT qualified teachers. Under the rules, the prescribed qualification for a JBT teacher included a Matric with a two years' course in JBT training and knowledge of Punjabi and Hindi of the Matriculation standard or its equivalent. This Court held that none of the respondents held the prescribed qualification and an MA, MSc or MCom could not be treated as a “higher qualification”. Under the rules, the prescribed qualification for a JBT teacher included a Matric with a two years' course in JBT training and knowledge of Punjabi and Hindi of the Matriculation standard or its equivalent. This Court held that none of the respondents held the prescribed qualification and an MA, MSc or MCom could not be treated as a “higher qualification”. Adverting to the decision in Jyoti K.K., this Court noted that Rule 10(a)(ii) in that case clearly stipulated that the possession of a higher qualification can presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification prescribed for the post. In the absence of such a stipulation, it was held that such a hypothesis could not be deduced. ............."(Emphasis is ours) After extracting the relevant portions of the judgment in Anita (supra) it was held:- “26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. in the subsequent decision in Anita (supra). The decision in Jyoti K.K. turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench. (Emphasis is ours) 27. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision of the Division Bench. (Emphasis is ours) 27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification. The State is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of administrative decision-making. The State as a public employer may well take into account social perspectives that require the creation of job opportunities across the societal structure. All these are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the decision in Jyoti K.K.must be understood in the context of a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti K.K. turned." 8. The issue was again considered by the Supreme Court in Ajith K (supra). In that case, the question was whether a Diploma in Health Inspectors course (DHIS), a two-year course conducted by the Director of Health Services, Kerala could be considered as a sufficient qualification for appointment to the post of Health Inspector/Food Inspector Grade-II in the Kerala Municipal Common Service. The relevant Rules namely the Kerala Municipal Common Service Rules, 1967 specified the qualifications prescribed for the post to be:- “Minimum general educational of S.S.L.C. Standard. Sanitary Inspectors' Certificate of Bombay or Madras; or Health Inspectors' Certificate of Trivandrum Medical College; or Sanitary Inspectors' Certificate of the All India Institute of Local Self Government, Bombay or the certificate in Sanitary Inspectors course awarded by the National Council for Rural Higher Education. Age -Not below 18 years and above 30 years”. Sanitary Inspectors' Certificate of Bombay or Madras; or Health Inspectors' Certificate of Trivandrum Medical College; or Sanitary Inspectors' Certificate of the All India Institute of Local Self Government, Bombay or the certificate in Sanitary Inspectors course awarded by the National Council for Rural Higher Education. Age -Not below 18 years and above 30 years”. The notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission contained a note:- 'KS&SSR Part-II, Rule 10 (a) (ii) is applicable for selection to this post' Noticing that persons with DHIC qualifications were included in the selection process, certain candidates approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, a three-member committee conducted a comparative study of the syllabi of the DHIC program and the Sanitary Inspectors Diploma course and made some recommendations including a recommendation which stated that topics of both courses are almost the same except for some minute differences. The Kerala Public Service Commission also filed a reply statement before the Tribunal stating that the two-year DHIC is a higher qualification in the same faculty and that it had accordingly been decided to consider candidates possessing the DHIC for the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II by adhering to the provisions of Rule 10 (a) (ii) of Part-II KS & SSR, 1958. The Tribunal allowed the original applications and held that persons with DHIC could not be considered for appointment. A Division Bench of this Court upheld that decision of the Tribunal. The matter was carried to the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, a specific contention was raised with reference to Rule 10 (a) (ii) and Rule 13 (b) (i) of Part-II KS&SSR that the Public Service Commission was legally entitled to determine as to whether a particular qualification was equivalent to the prescribed qualification. It was held:- "13. Rule 10(a)(ii) commences with a non-obstante provision. It contemplates three situations: (i) Qualifications recognized by executive orders or standing orders of the government as being equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the Special Rules; or (ii) Qualifications found acceptable by the Commission in accordance with Rule 13(b)(i) in cases where acceptance of equivalent qualifications is provided for in the Special Rules; and (iii) Qualifications which pre-suppose the acquisition of a lower qualification prescribed for the post. Any of these would be treated as sufficient for the post. 14. Any of these would be treated as sufficient for the post. 14. The Tribunal observed that although a diploma course could be treated as superior to a certificate course, to qualify under Rule 10(a)(ii), the diploma course should be one which pre-supposes the completion of the certificate course. In that context, the Tribunal held: “The post of Junior Health Inspector Grade II is available in Municipal Common Service as well as in the Health Services Department. The qualification prescribed for the above post in these two departments differ. In the Department of Health Services, the qualification for the post of Junior Health Inspector Grade II is a Diploma in Health Inspectors' course whereas in Municipal Common Service it is generally Sanitary Inspectors' Certificate. There is, therefore a clear distinction between the above post in these two Departments.” 15. The Tribunal noted that the duties and functions attached to the Junior Health Inspector's post in the Municipal Common Service are distinct from those in the Health Services Department. Moreover, the Tribunal noted that neither KPSC nor any duly constituted authority had endeavoured to determine whether the DHIC is to be treated as a superior qualification, the Tribunal held: “The question, therefore, to be considered is whether any authority or the Public Service Commission itself has endeavoured to find whether the qualification of DHIC could be treated as a superior qualification which presupposed the possession of Sanitary Inspectors Training Course. On winnowing through the pleadings and the materials on record, the answer is in the negative. Neither the Public Service Commission nor the authorities concerned have endeavoured to do so. The post that is notified is that of Junior Health Inspector Grade II in Municipal Common Service and, therefore, the question whether any other course could be treated as equivalent to the above course or whether any course could be treated as a superior qualification which presupposes the qualification of Sanitary Inspectors' Course had to be ascertained and declared by the administrative department or the appointing authority. …...................... It is noted that Annexure R5(a) communication only offers an opinion, it does not declare the above course of DHIC to be a superior qualification. …...................... It is noted that Annexure R5(a) communication only offers an opinion, it does not declare the above course of DHIC to be a superior qualification. It also does not consider the fact whether the possession of DHIC would pre-suppose the possession of Sanitary Inspectors' course and whether the Junior Health Inspectors post in the Directorate of Health Services was a superior post to that of the Junior Health Inspectors post in Municipal Common Service. Moreover,. Annexure R5(a) communication, it is noted, is not an executive order coming within the purview of Articles 162 and 166 of the Constitution of India. Annexure 5(a) is in the nature of a communication expressing an opinion to a query by the Public Service Commission. The same does not declare DHIC course to be a superior qualification to that of Sanitary Inspectors' Course in accordance with Rule 10(a)(ii) and 13(b)(i) Part II KS&SSR.” (Emphasis is ours) 16. This view of the Tribunal has been accepted by the High Court. 17. …............Finally, the last condition contemplated in Rule 10(a)(ii) adverts to those qualifications which pre-suppose the acquisition of a lower qualification prescribed for a post. The expression pre-suppose means subsumed in. All that we find from the report of the three-member Committee are general observations about the duration of the DHIC being longer, of a similarity of the topics in the syllabi and a comparison between the number of theory and practical sessions. There has been no finding that the acquisition of the DHIC pre-supposes the completion of the certificate course." The Supreme Court then considered the law laid down in Jyothi and held:- "20. The above extract indicates that the qualification for the promotional post of assistant engineer was a degree in engineering. Consequently, the acquisition of the degree was held to pre-suppose the acquisition of the ‘lower qualification’ of the diploma prescribed for the post of sub-engineer. This constitutes a distinguishing factor and hence the decision in Jyoti K K does not apply to the present facts. The decision in Jyoti K.K. was subsequently distinguished in State of Punjab v. Anita, as noted by this Court in a more recent decision in Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad. (See also in this context, the decision of the two judge Bench in P M Latha v. State of Kerala.) (Emphasis is ours) 21.. …….. 22. The decision in Jyoti K.K. was subsequently distinguished in State of Punjab v. Anita, as noted by this Court in a more recent decision in Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad. (See also in this context, the decision of the two judge Bench in P M Latha v. State of Kerala.) (Emphasis is ours) 21.. …….. 22. The reference to the diploma being an additional qualification is extraneous to Rule 10(a)(ii). The reference to a diploma being acceptable in the Health Department is again an extraneous consideration. Ex facie, it is evident that in coming to the conclusion extracted above, there was no application of mind to the requirements contained in Rule 10(a)(ii). There was no determination of equivalence by any executive order or standing order of the State Government. Nor was there any finding that a DHIC pre-supposes the acquisition of the lower qualification. KPSC has not carried out any exercise as required by the provisions of the rule." (Emphasis is ours) The Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajith does not therefore make a departure from the law laid down in Jyothi though Rule 10 (a)(ii) was applicable to the selection. 9. The judgment of the full bench of this Court in Suma (supra) may not apply to the facts of the present case as the question considered there was with reference to equivalence of qualification and not the question of a higher qualification presupposing the holding of the prescribed qualification. In other words, the decision in Suma applies only to the first part of Rule 10(a)(ii) which deals with equivalence of qualifications and not to the second part of the Rule which deals with the acquisition of a higher qualification presupposing the holding of a lower qualification. 10. The fact that the notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission, in the facts of this case, did not specifically mention that the Rule 10 (a) (ii) of Part-II KS & SSR was not applicable, may not by itself be determinative for, as rightly contended by Sri P.C. Sasidharan, the mere non-mentioning of applicability of Rule 10 (a) (ii) of Part II of the KS&SSR, in the notification, did not take away the applicability of that Rule. Statutory Rules such as Rule 10(a)(ii) apply to every selection even if its applicability is not declared specifically in the Notification. Statutory Rules such as Rule 10(a)(ii) apply to every selection even if its applicability is not declared specifically in the Notification. However in order to ensure that there is equality of opportunity and to avoid any kind of arbitrariness, the Public Service Commission would do well either to issue General Guidelines as to which qualification other than the prescribed one would be determined for acceptance under the second part of Rule 10(a)(ii). 11. We find from Anita (supra) and Zahoor (supra) that the ratio of Jyothi (supra) was not applied only on account of the fact that the Supreme Court held that a Rule similar to Rule 10(a)(ii) was not applicable to the selections considered in that case. In Ajith (supra) Rule 10(a)(ii) was clearly applicable. However the ratio of Jyothi was found not applicable as the committee which had been appointed to go into the matter did not declare DHIS to be a superior qualification that presupposes the acquisition of the lower (prescribed) qualification. Further and more importantly, in Ajith it was specifically noticed that the decision in Jyothi also turned on the fact that the that the qualification for the promotional post of assistant engineer was a degree in engineering. This, it was held (in paragraph 20 of the judgment in Ajith) 'a distinguishing factor'. In the facts of this case also it is not disputed before us that the qualification for the post of Workshop Supervisor/Manager is B.Tech in Mechanical Engineering. Thus the facts of this case are almost identical to the situation considered in Jyothi and therefore holding a Bachelor's Degree in mechanical engineering can be held to presuppose the holding of the lower (prescribed) qualification for the post of Tradesman (Welding). The Tribunal wrongly held otherwise. 12. We therefore set aside the order dated 07-08-2018 in O.A 2473/2016 and that Original application will stand dismissed. We direct the Kerala Public Service Commission to issue General Guidelines/a Circular regarding the circumstances in which a qualification other than the prescribed qualification would be accepted as being a higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of the lower (prescribed) qualification. Such General Guidelines/Circular shall also be given wide publicity in such manner as the Commission deems appropriate. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.