JUDGMENT : P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. Whether higher qualification presupposes lower qualification always, is the basic question mooted for consideration. The answer given in the 'positive' by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition challenging the proceedings pursued contrary to the rules and advertisement, relying on the dictum in Jyoti K.K. & Others v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Others {(2010) 15 SCC 596}, is put to challenge in this appeal, placing reliance on the subsequent ruling rendered by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Anita & Others { (2015) 2 SCC 170 } and Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Others { (2019) 2 SCC 404 } where the earlier decision Jyoti K.K. & Others (supra) has been discussed and distinguished. 2. The sequence of events shows that the Public Works Department (for short 'the PWD') and the Geology and Mining Department (1st and 2nd Respondents), joining hands with the Panchayat & Rural Development Department, issued a combined recruitment Notification vide Annexure A/2 dated 08.02.2018 for filling up the posts of Draughtsman/Assistant Draughtsman (Civil) specifying the eligibility conditions, particularly, the qualifications in terms of the relevant rules. Even though, all the above three Departments were seeking to effect appointment to similar posts, the rules for recruitment are different. In the case of Mining and Geology Department, it is governed by the Chhattisgarh Geology and Mining Grade III (Clerical and Non-Clerical) Rules, 2008 (for short 'the 2008 Rules') whereas, in the case of Panchayat and Rural Development Department, the field is occupied by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Class III (Ministerial and Non-Ministerial) and Class IV Services Recruitment Rules, 2011 (for short 'the 2011 Rules'); while the recruitment in the PWD is based on the Chhattisgarh Public Works Department (Non-Gazetted) Service Entry Rules, 2016 (for short, 'the 2016 Rules'). In the instant case, the grievance stands confined only to the recruitment exercise in the PWD; governed by the 2016 Rules'. 3. At the very outset, it will be worthwhile to have reference to the 2016 Rules' (Annexure A/3) for appointment to the post of Assistant Draughtsman in the PWD. In the instant case, the grievance stands confined only to the recruitment exercise in the PWD; governed by the 2016 Rules'. 3. At the very outset, it will be worthwhile to have reference to the 2016 Rules' (Annexure A/3) for appointment to the post of Assistant Draughtsman in the PWD. Rule 8(2) of the 2016 Rules reads as follows: 8- lh/kh HkrhZ ds fy, ik=rk dh 'krsaZ & lh/kh HkrhZ@p;u gsrq ik= gksus ds fy, vH;FkhZ dks fuEufyf[kr 'krsaZ iwjh djuh gksaxh] vFkkZr~%& ¼,d½ xxx xxx xxx ¼nks½ 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk,a&vHFkhZ ds ikl lsok ds fy;s ;Fkk fofgr ,slh 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk,a gksuh pkfg,] tSlk fd vuqlwph&rhu esa nf'kZr gSA The educational qualification mentioned in Rule 8(2), is as given in Schedule III, which is to the following effect: vuqlwph & rhu ¼fu;e 9 nsf[k;s½ l-Ø- lsok@inksa ds uke U;wure vk;q lhek vf/kdre vk;q lhek fofgr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk fVIif.k;ka 1- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 2- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 3- lgk;d ekufp=dkj ¼flfoy½ 18 o"kZ 35 o"kZ okLrqdyk esa i=ksikf/k vFkok vkS|ksfxd izf'k{k.k laLFkku ls flfoy@ bysDVªhdy@esdsfudy bathfu;fjax vFkok losZ;j dk O;olkf;d f'k{kqrk izek.ki= vFkok baMLVª;y dkÅafly vkQ oksds'kuy Vªsfuax ¼3 o"khZ;½ izek.ki= 4. On considering the qualification for recruitment to the post of Assistant Draughtsman, it is easily discernible that the qualification mentioned in Annexure A/3 '2016 Rules' are the same as notified in Annexure A/2 Advertisement. The Petitioners who were having 'ITI certificates' are duly qualified as per the Rules and as per the Advertisement to apply for the post of Assistant Draughtsman, who submitted their applications accordingly. A written test was conducted on 25.03.2018 and the results were declared in May, 2018. After evaluation, a list of successful candidates was published on 01.09.2018 and thereafter, the candidates were called for verification of the documents to be held on 17.09.2018 and 18.09.2018. After scrutiny, Annexure A/4 'provisional list' of successful candidates was published on 19.09.2018; when the Appellants came to know for the first time, that the candidates given placement in Annexure A/4 list were not having the 'prescribed qualifications' under the Rules and the Advertisement, but were having much higher qualification of Degree or Diploma in Civil Engineering and such other subjects. This made them to file a representation before the competent authority, which did not yield any positive result and hence, they approached this Court joining hands with some others (who are arrayed as the 9th to 11th Respondents in the appeal) by filing the writ petition. A direction was sought for to set aside the select list dated 19.09.2018 (Annexure P/1) to the extent of declaring the ineligible persons having qualifications other than the qualifications prescribed in the Rules and notified in the Advertisement and further to direct the Respondent authorities to issue fresh select list, considering the candidature of the Writ Petitioners in accordance with their merit. 5. As mentioned above after Annexure A/2 Advertisement issued by the 1st Respondent-Government, a written test was conducted by the 3rd Respondent-Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (for short 'the Board') who prepared the Annexure A/4 provisional list and forwarded the same to the Government for further steps. The Respondent-Board filed reply and sought to justify their action in giving placement to the persons having higher educational qualifications in the list, in preference to the persons like the Appellants/Writ Petitioners who were only having ITI. It was also contended that by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Jyoti K.K. & Others (supra), higher qualification presupposes a lower qualification and hence, the persons with Diploma, Degree or Post Graduate Degree in Civil Engineering or other relevant subjects were definitely to be held as having the lower qualification prescribed in the Rules and notified in the Annexure A/2 Advertisement. 6. The 2nd Respondent/State Government filed their reply almost in similar lines, however, stating that in the case of the Panchayat & Rural Development Department, the 2011 Rules' specifically empowered the Respondent to consider the candidates with higher qualifications to appoint them to the post in question. That apart, the Panchayat & Rural Development Department was not a party to the proceedings and no challenge or claim was raised in respect of the said Department. That apart, the Panchayat & Rural Development Department was not a party to the proceedings and no challenge or claim was raised in respect of the said Department. With regard to the 'Mining and Geology Department', it was pointed out that the Government had considered the matter and on finding that the relevant Rules and Advertisement did not stipulate any higher qualifications of Diploma, Degree or Post Graduation in the subject concerned, but for stipulating ITI, it was decided that the persons with higher qualifications would not be considered and included in the list of eligible candidates. But nothing was mentioned as to why the same analogy was not applicable in the case of the PWD. 7. After hearing both the sides, the learned Single Judge extracted the relevant Rules and held that recruitment to the post of Assistant Draughtsman in the 'Panchayat & Rural Development Department' was governed by separate set of rules i.e. 2011 Rules' which specifically provided to reckon the higher qualification as well for appointment, and hence, there was nothing wrong in including the persons with such higher qualification in the list. In the case of the 'Mining & Geology Department' (where qualification is similar to the Annexure A/3 Rules of the PWD and as advertised vide Annexure A/2), the Government had conceded that the select list would be modified/prepared according to the qualification prescribed in the Advertisement and the service Rules and hence, no deliberation or adjudication was required on the issue. However, coming to the 'PWD', without drawing any analogy or the need to have a similar treatment as in the case of 'Mining & Geology Department', the learned Single Judge proceeded to hold that the higher qualification of Degree/Post Graduate Degree in Civil Engineering would presuppose the lower qualification as per Annexure A/3 Rules or Annexure A/2 advertisement, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Jyoti K.K. & Others (supra) and further that the classification on the basis of higher educational qualification to achieve higher administrative efficiency was permissible under the constitutional scheme, as held by the Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Dilip Kumar & Another { (1993) 2 SCC 310 }. The learned Single Judge also observed that the Intervenors were not arrayed in the party array and since all the candidates in Annexure A/4 list were not impleaded, if the select list was set aside, it would adversely affect their rights; which could not be ordered without hearing them, as it would be contrary to the principles of natural justice. It was accordingly, that interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed. However with respect to the appointment of Assistant Draughtsman in the 'Mining & Geology Department', a different course was adopted, in view of the return filed by the State admitting the mistake (which is the same as in the instant case) that the select list should be modified according to the departmental recruitment rules of the Mining & Geology Department. 8. Shri Prateek Sharma, the learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the Respondent-State having formulated specific rules vide Annexure A/3 prescribing the educational qualifications and having issued Annexure A/2 Advertisement clearly mentioning those qualifications as the required qualifications for recruitment, it could not have been deviated in any manner while preparing the select list by the 3rd Respondent-Board, which is liable to be corrected by the State, as decided in the case of 'Mining & Geology Department' involving exactly similar facts and circumstances. Having realised the mistake and having conceded the same in the return filed by the State Government before the Court (in respect of Mining & Geology Department), it should have been made equally applicable in the case of the PWD as well. Absolutely no reason is forthcoming as to why a differential treatment has been made in respect of the PWD. Having come across such similarity in the facts/Rule situation and having directed the Government to give effect to the undertaking that they would modify the select list in respect of the Mining & Geology Department, by excluding the higher qualified candidates and confining it to the candidates having the specific qualifications as prescribed in the Rules and notified in the Advertisement, the learned Single Judge went wrong in not extending the said benefit in the case of the PWD involving exactly similar Rules and the similar qualifications as given in the advertisement, which in fact has resulted in differential treatment. This has resulted in patent arbitrariness and discrimination on the parts of the State, violating Article 14 and such other rights of the Appellants, and hence the challenge. 9. Shri Vikram Sharma, the learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent/State sought to defend the action pursued by the 3rd Respondent-Board and the inaction of the Government insofar as the PWD is concerned, trying to support the judgment. Reference is made to Rule 10(1) of Annexure A/3 Rules, which is to the following effect: ^^10- vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ik=rk ds ckjs esa fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh dk fofu'p; vafre gksxk & ¼1½ ijh{kk @ p;u gsrq vH;FkhZ dh ik=rk ;k vU;Fkk ds laca/k esa] fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh dk fofu'p; vafre gksxk vkSj fdlh Hkh vH;FkhZ dks] ftls fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh }kjk izos'k izek.ki= tkjh ugha fd;k x;k gS] ijh{kk@lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr gksus dh vuqefr ugha nh tk;sxhA** The learned counsel submits that the ultimate authority to decide the eligibility of a candidate is conferred upon the employer, by virtue of the above Rule and this is very much included as part of Annexure A/2 Advertisement as well as given in paragraph 5(5), which is to the following effect: ^^5- p;u gsrq vH;FkhZ dh ik=rk@vik=rk ds laca/k esa vafre fu.kZ; ysus dk vf/kdkj] izeq[k vfHk;ark] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] u;k jk;iqj dks gksxkA** 10. The learned counsel for the State submits that the qualification prescribed in the Advertisement is only the 'minimum qualification' and that there is no bar either in the Rules or in the Advertisement that the persons with higher qualifications will not be considered. It is also pointed out that, though in the case of Mining & Geology Department, the Government has decided that the higher qualifications would not be considered (but for the specific qualifications as contained in the Rules and as given in the Advertisement), no such decision has been taken in the case of PWD and hence, no benefit can be sought to be extended to the writ petitioners/Appellants. 11. 11. Here, it is to be noted that absolutely no logic or reason is given from the part of the Government as to why no similar decision has been taken in the case of the PWD, as taken in the case of Mining & Geology Department, when the relevant rules as contained in the 2008 Rules' governing the field of recruitment in Mining & Geology Department and those contained in the 2016 Rules' governing the field of recruitment of Assistant Draughtsman in the PWD, are exactly similar and further when Annexure A/2 Advertisement given is a 'combined advertisement' showing exactly similar Rules for recruitment to the post of Assistant Draughtsman both in the Mining & Geology Department and also in the PWD. The learned counsel for the State submits that they have specifically pleaded in 'paragraph 10' of the return filed in the writ petition, that Annexure P/1 (Annexure A/4 in the writ appeal) was only a provisional list which was yet to be finalised by the Government and hence, the writ petition itself was 'premature'. 12. Shri Animesh Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd Respondent-Board submits that the 3rd Respondent is a State Government body whose role is only to conduct the examinations, evaluate the results and to give the list of candidates identified, to the State Government. The selection has been conducted in accordance with the relevant rules as notified in the combined Notification. It is stated that the Rules do not place any bar in selecting candidates with higher qualification and that it is sustainable in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K. & Others (supra) that possession of higher qualification pre-supposes lower qualification. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that some candidates having ITI Certificate (as possessed by the Appellants), by virtue of their higher merit, have been included in the select list (Annexure A/4) and as such, there is no instance of any discrimination. 13. Shri Prafull N. Bharat, the learned counsel appearing for the 16th Respondent/Intervenor submits that there is absolutely no merit in the appeal as all the candidates placed in Annexure A/4 list are candidates who have proved their merit by virtue of their qualification and performance in the written test, whereas the Petitioners/Appellants failed to display the requisite standard and hence, left out. The 16th Respondent is a Degree holder and by virtue of the higher qualification, he stands on a higher pedestal than the level occupied by the Appellants who are only the ITI/Certificate holders. The learned counsel sought to justify the course pursued by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition being devoid of merit in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Jyoti K.K. & Others (supra); simultaneously adding that the subsequent decision rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Anita & Others (supra) and Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra) stands on a different footing and is not attracted. The learned counsel further submits that the writ petition itself was not maintainable for the reason that that the Writ Petitioners had participated in the process of selection, and after having failed to come out successful, they cannot turn around and challenge the selection in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in D. Sarojakumari v. R. Helen Thilakom & Others (2017) 9 SCC 478 . In support of the contention that the Rules do not say that the higher qualification will be a bar and not to be considered, reliance is sought to be placed on the decision rendered in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Dilip Kumar & Another (1993) 2 SCC 310 } and Union of India & Another v. T. Sundararaman & Others (1997) 4 SCC 664 ). The learned counsel submits that there are only 43 posts' and since the ranking obtained by the Appellants/Writ Petitioners is far below, they cannot aspire to have selected. Therefore, the issue is only of academic in nature and hence the challenge should fail, it not being a public interest litigation. 14. Shri S.S. Rajput, the learned counsel appearing for the 13th Respondent/ Intervenor submits that the said Respondent is a Degree holder in Civil Engineering and has acquired knowledge of much higher level than the Appellants/Writ Petitioners who are only ITI Certificate holders. The learned counsel sought to adopt all the submissions made by Shri Prafull N Bharat, the learned counsel appearing for the 16th Respondent/Intervenor. 15. In reply, Shri Prateek Sharma, the learned counsel for the Appellants/Writ Petitioners submits that Annexure A/4 provisional list, which is a combined list for three different Departments, contains a total of 246 names; out of which, upto Sl. 15. In reply, Shri Prateek Sharma, the learned counsel for the Appellants/Writ Petitioners submits that Annexure A/4 provisional list, which is a combined list for three different Departments, contains a total of 246 names; out of which, upto Sl. No. 221 are the candidates having higher qualification of Degree/Post Graduation. Only on deleting them from the merit list, would the actual merit position of the candidates will become clear. Further, it is not possible for the Appellants or the Writ Petitioners to point out which candidate has opted for which Department, since it is a combined recruitment process. The learned counsel reiterates that the 'Rules 2016' for the PWD, unlike the 2011 Rules' governing the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, do not specify that the candidates with higher qualification can be considered. Since the requisite qualification as per the 2016 Rules' and as notified in Annexure A/2 Advertisement are clear and specific, no candidates having other qualifications can be considered to be included in the select list. Anything to be considered and decided with regard to equivalence or such other aspect with reference to the qualification had to be decided by the Government before issuing the advertisement and the rules of the game cannot be changed after commencement of the game, as held by the Apex Court in Prakash Chand Meena & Others v. State of Rajasthan & Others (2015) 8 SCC 484 . The learned counsel also points out that the Writ Petitioners were having no grievance against the 2016 Rules' or Annexure A/2 Advertisement insofar as the qualification is concerned and they came to know that candidates with higher qualifications (contrary to the Rules and Advertisement) were included in Annexure A/4 only on publication of the same on 19.09.2018, whereas the written test conducted in conformity with the Rules and the Advertisement had taken place earlier on 25.03.2018. As such, the law declared by the Supreme Court that the candidates cannot challenge the selection after losing the same is not applicable. 16. As discussed already, the requisite qualifications for getting appointment as Assistant Draughtsman in the PWD are quite specific as contained in Annexure A/3 (2016 Rules) which have been incorporated as such in Annexure A/2 Advertisement as well. The above Rules and Advertisement do not say that persons with higher qualifications can be considered or any preference will be given to the candidates with higher qualifications. The above Rules and Advertisement do not say that persons with higher qualifications can be considered or any preference will be given to the candidates with higher qualifications. The law declared by the Apex Court in Jyoti K.K. & Others (supra) and the subsequent ruling in Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Others (supra) distinguishing the former have to be read and understood in the above backdrop. 17. Coming to the case law, the issue involved in Jyoti K.K. & Others (supra) was with regard to selection of Sub-Engineers (Electrical) in the Kerala State Electricity Board, where the qualification prescribed was SSLC or its equivalent and the technical qualification of (a) Diploma in Electrical Engineering (after three years course study) or (b) Certificate in Electrical Engineering (with 5 years experience in the Kerala State Electricity Board) or (c) MGTE/KGTE in electrical light and power (higher) and with five years' experience as II Grade Overseer (Electrical) under the Kerala State Electricity Board. The Appellants having Degree of B.E./B.Tech in Electrical Engineering were left out by the Kerala Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission') for not possessing the requisite qualification, which was upheld by the Kerala High Court. The Commission asserted before the Apex Court that even for considering the persons having higher qualifications in terms of Rule 10(a)(ii) of Part I of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1956 (for short 'the 1956 Rules'), the higher qualification should presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. Rule 10(a)(ii) of the 1956 Rules which enables such exercise, as extracted by the Apex Court, is to the following effect: "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." The Apex Court held that if the candidate has acquired the higher qualification in the same faculty, such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post. Observing that the post to be filled up was that of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) and further that the next higher post of Assistant Engineer envisaged Degree in Electrical Engineering; the lower post of Sub-Engineer (which is the feeder cadre for the higher post) was held as a post which could be filled up by persons having qualification of Degree in Electrical Engineering that presupposes acquisition of lower qualification of Diploma, prescribed for the post of Sub-Engineer. 18. In the instant case, the qualification prescribed in Annexure A/3 Rules for the post of Assistant Draughtsman and as notified in Annexure A/2 Advertisement is: (i) Diploma in Architecture or (ii) Certificate of Civil Engineering Draughtsmanship from ITI or (iii) Commercial Apprenticeship in Surveyor or (iv) Certificate (three years) from Industrial Council of Vocational Training. The qualification of Degree or Post Graduate Degree in Civil Engineering cannot be held as in the 'same faculty' to apply the verdict of the Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K. & Others (supra), as the requisite qualification as per Rules and the Advertisement for the post of Assistant Draughtsman is something else, though the subject may be one of the subjects studied by the persons while undergoing the Degree course; the extent of which cannot be assessed or declared by this Court. The scope of the said verdict came up for consideration before the Apex Court later in State of Punjab v. Anita & Others (supra). The law declared by the Apex Court in P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala { (2003) 3 SCC 541 } and Yogesh Kumar v. Government (NCT of Delhi) { (2003) 3 SCC 548 } to the effect that B.Ed qualification cannot be considered as an equivalent or higher qualification of 'TTC', which was the requisite qualification for getting appointment to the post of JBT/ETT Teacher involved in the said case, was referred to. After making a reference to the dictum in Jyoti K.K. & Others (supra), the Bench held that, in the said case, the decision was rendered with reference to a statutory rule, particularly Rule 10(a)(ii) of the 1956 Rules which enabled reckoning of higher qualification which presupposes the acquisition of lower qualification prescribed for the post as sufficient for appointment to the said post. The observation in paragraph 15 is to the following effect: "15. The observation in paragraph 15 is to the following effect: "15. It was sought to be asserted on the basis of the aforesaid observations, that since the private respondents possess higher qualifications, then 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. The statutory rule, in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the private respondents, is extracted hereunder: (SCC p. 598, para 6) "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*.” (emphasis supplied). 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 authorizing the appointment of persons with higher qualifications. It was accordingly held that the appointment given to the Appellant who did not satisfy the requisite qualification as per the rules and hence that the qualification possessed by the Appellant did not presuppose the lower qualification; thus allowing the appeal filed by the State who declined to grant approval to the appointment given by the Management contrary to the rules. 19. The matter came up for consideration before the Apex Court in a recent ruling as well in Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Others (supra); wherein the scope of the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Jyoti K.K. & Others (supra) was considered, also with reference to the subsequent ruling in State of Punjab v. Anita & Others (supra). The qualification for appointment to the post of Technician III was Matriculation with ITI in Electrical Trade, whereas the Appellants were not possessing ITI certification, but were 'Diploma holders' in Electrical Engineering/Electronics & Communication. The qualification for appointment to the post of Technician III was Matriculation with ITI in Electrical Trade, whereas the Appellants were not possessing ITI certification, but were 'Diploma holders' in Electrical Engineering/Electronics & Communication. The Apex Court held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe the qualification after taking into consideration the nature of the job, aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of qualification, course content leading up to acquisition of qualification etc. and that judicial review cannot expand upon ambit of prescribed qualification nor decide equivalence of qualification which is for the State to determine. It was made clear that the verdict passed by the Apex Court in Jyoti K.K. & Others (supra) was on the basis of a specific enabling rule i.e. Rule 10(a)(ii) of the 1956 Rules, where the higher qualification presupposed acquisition of lower qualification and in the absence of any statutory rule in this regard, such inference cannot be drawn. The observations in paragraphs 26 and 27 are relevant and hence, they are reproduced below: "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. 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. 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. 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." From the above, it is explicitly clear that in the absence of any specific rule enabling the Respondents to reckon a higher qualification as presupposing acquisition of a lower qualification, the higher qualification cannot be accepted for deciding the eligibility contrary to the specific rule mentioned in Annexure A/3 and those contained in Annexure A/2 Advertisement. 20. The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the law declared by the Apex Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Others (supra) is not applicable insofar as it was on the basis of a "decision of the Board" in its 116th meeting held on 31.01.2015 to go by the qualification strictly mentioned in the relevant Rules/Advertisement and never to reckon any higher qualifications. The Board noted that in some Districts, higher qualifications were reckoned whereas in some Districts, it was strictly in conformity with the rules, without reckoning higher qualifications. The Board took the decision as aforesaid to go by the specific qualification given in the Rules/Advertisement. The said decision taken by the Board is strictly in conformity with the Rules/Advertisement and nothing new is brought out. As it stands so, it is not on the basis of the decision of the Board, that the Apex Court passed the verdict in Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Others (supra), but on the basis of specific finding that, in the absence of any enabling rule providing for reckoning 'higher qualification', it was not possible to presuppose acquisition of the lower qualification. Hence, the said submission does not have any pith or substance. 21. Despite the elaborate hearing, neither the learned counsel for the State or the Board, nor the learned counsel appearing for the Intervenors could refer to any rule in the 2016 Rules' (Annexure A/3) enabling to reckon the 'higher qualification' as well, which presupposes the acquisition of lower qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Draughtsman in the PWD. The Degree possessed by the candidates (having higher qualifications enlisted in Annexure A/4) is not in the same faculty (as insisted in the Rules or in the Advertisement) as the requisite qualification in the Rules/Advertisement was (i) Diploma in Architecture or (ii) Certificate of Civil Engineering Draughtsmanship from ITI or (iii) Commercial Apprenticeship in Surveyor or (iv) Certificate (three years) from Industrial Council of Vocational Training. It is relevant to note that the distinguishing aspect as to the scope of the dictum in Jyoti K.K. & Others (supra) as dealt with by the Apex Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Others (supra) was unfortunately not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and there is no reference to the latter judgment explaining the scope of Jyoti K.K. & Others (supra) anywhere in the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge. 22. There is a contention for the Respondents that the qualification prescribed in Annexure A/3 Rules and those contained in Annexure A/2 Advertisement are only the "minimum qualification" and as such, there is no bar in reckoning the higher qualification of Degree in Civil Engineering or Post Graduation for deciding the eligibility of the candidates. We find it difficult to agree. There is a contention for the Respondents that the qualification prescribed in Annexure A/3 Rules and those contained in Annexure A/2 Advertisement are only the "minimum qualification" and as such, there is no bar in reckoning the higher qualification of Degree in Civil Engineering or Post Graduation for deciding the eligibility of the candidates. We find it difficult to agree. This is for the obvious reason that neither the Rule nor the Advertisement does mention that it is the 'minimum qualification'. The word 'minimum' is obviously not contained in Annexure A/3 Rules or Annexure A/2 Advertisement. What is stipulated is the ^^fofgr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk** i.e. the 'prescribed qualification' and nothing else. The Rules 2016 also do not provide for any enabling clause for considering 'higher qualification' as in the case of Rule 10(a)(ii) considered by the Apex Court in Jyoti K.K. & Others (supra). In the absence of any such rule enabling the higher qualification also to be reckoned as presupposing the lower qualification, as held by the Apex Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra), the version of the Respondents in this regard is only to be rejected and they have to go strictly by the qualifications prescribed in Annexure A/3 Rules and those notified in Annexure A/2 Advertisement. 23. With regard to the contentions raised by the Respondents that the Appellants/Writ Petitioners having lost the selection cannot challenge the process of selection by filing writ petition, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in D. Sarojakumari (supra), we are of the view that there cannot be any dispute that a candidate who had participated in the selection and failed cannot subsequently challenge the 'process of selection'. But the position in the instant case is entirely different. As mentioned already, the Appellants/Writ Petitioners did not have any grievance with regard to the eligibility qualification as contained in Annexure A/3 Rules, which have been correctly incorporated in Annexure A/2 Advertisement as well; that made them to participate in the process of selection with the firm belief that the qualifications mentioned in the Rules and those notified in the Advertisement would be given effect to; as it is. 24. 24. Examination was conducted by the 3rd Respondent, a State Government body, who prepared and got notified Annexure A/4 list containing the name of candidates having higher qualifications than the prescribed/notified qualifications, wrongly conferring eligibility upon them contrary to the 2016 Rules and the contents of Annexure A/2 Advertisement. This was on the basis of a wrong interpretation of Annexure A/3 Rules framed by the Government and the contents of Annexure A/2 Advertisement. Though the 3 rd Respondent/Board submitted that it had done so, as required by the Government, no material is brought to the notice of this Court to the effect that the State had required the 3rd Respondent/Board to prepare the list also considering the 'higher qualification' of Degree/Post Graduation in Civil Engineering, virtually deviating from the 2016 Rules (Annexure A/3) and the contents of the Advertisement (Annexure A/2) where the requisite qualification was specifically mentioned. That apart, the 'cause of action' arose only on publishing Annexure A/4 list (stated as provisional) on 19.09.2018 deviating from to Annexure A/3 Rules and Annexure A/2 Advertisement, which had not arisen when the Appellants/Writ Petitioners participated in the written test held on 25.03.2018. This being the position, it cannot be said that the Appellants/Writ Petitioners had participated in the selection on 25.03.2018 with the knowledge that there was a chance for the Respondents to have published the list enlisting the candidates with 'higher qualifications' ignoring the mandate of Annexure A/3 Rules or the contents of Annexure A/2 Advertisement. Since the wrongful step pursued by the 3rd Respondent in reckoning the 'higher qualification' (to decide the eligibility or the outcome of the written test conducted on 25.03.2018) tilted the balance for the first time only on 19.09.2018 i.e. on publication of Annexure A/4 list, the Appellants/Writ Petitioners were perfectly justified in projecting their grievance as to the exercise pursued by the Respondents contrary to the Annexure A/3 Rules and the A/2 Advertisement, without any enabling provision for considering the 'higher qualification' to be reckoned as presupposing the lower qualification. The contentions raised to the contrary from the part of the Respondents stand repelled. 25. Here, there is a contention for the Respondents that Rule 10(1) of the 2016 Rules confers power upon the authority of the Government to decide the eligibility of the candidate and hence, the course pursued in reckoning the higher qualification is not liable to be interdicted. 25. Here, there is a contention for the Respondents that Rule 10(1) of the 2016 Rules confers power upon the authority of the Government to decide the eligibility of the candidate and hence, the course pursued in reckoning the higher qualification is not liable to be interdicted. Rule 10(1) of the 2016 Rules reads as under: ^^10- vH;kfFkZ;ksa dh ik=rk ds ckjs esa fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh dk fofu'p; vafre gksxk & ¼1½ ijh{kk @ p;u gsrq vH;FkhZ dh ik=rk ;k vU;Fkk ds laca/k esa] fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh dk fofu'p; vafre gksxk vkSj fdlh Hkh vH;FkhZ dks] ftls fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh }kjk izos'k izek.ki= tkjh ugha fd;k x;k gS] ijh{kk @ lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr gksus dh vuqefr ugha nh tk;sxhA** 26. The scope of the above Rule has to be understood only as to the authority given to deal with the dispute, if any as to the eligibility with reference to the norms specified in the Rules and as given in the Advertisement for selection. This does not give any power or authority to the employer/State Government to re-write the Rules or modify the same in any manner so as to suit to their convenience. This, in any view of the matter, is subject to the judicial scrutiny and further, if at all any change was to be there, it should have been done before issuance of the Advertisement; thus giving a chance to the aggrieved parties to challenge the same, if the Advertisement were contrary to the relevant rules. It is settled law, that the rules of the game cannot be changed after commencement of the game. We find support from the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another (2008) 3 SCC 512 ; Prakash Chand Meena & Others (supra) and the latest ruling of the Apex Court in Nitesh Kumar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (2020) 4 SCC 70 . 27. With regard to the non-joining of all the persons included in Annexure A/4 list in the party array, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the Appellants/Writ Petitioners and as admitted by the Respondents, it was a combined recruitment process for filling up the posts in three different Departments of the Government viz. Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Mining & Geology Department and the PWD. Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Mining & Geology Department and the PWD. Since a common test conducted by the 3rd Respondent, it was not possible for the Appellants/Writ petitioners to say with clarity as to which candidate had opted for which Department. As a matter of fact, the Writ Petitioners had impleaded the 4th to 8th Respondents in the party array, specifically contending in 'paragraph 8.2' of the writ petition that such persons were impleaded in the 'representative capacity'. Similar contention is raised in 'paragraph 14' of the writ appeal as well. That apart, the persons who came forward as Intervenors in the course of the writ petition have been included in the party array in the writ appeal as well and we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the 13th and 16th Respondents, though the others have not turned up, despite the completion of service of notice. This being the position, there is 'substantial compliance' from the part of the Writ Petitioners/Appellants which is quite adequate in all respects in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Prabodh Verma & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others { (1984) 4 SCC 251 , paragraph 28}, Tridip Kumar Dingal & Others v. State of West Bengal & Others { (2009) 1 SCC 768 , paragraph 41}, Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht & Others { (2010) 12 SCC 204 , paragraph 10} and J.S. Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another { (2011) 6 SCC 570 , paragraph 31}. 28. Above all, it has been conceded by the State in 'paragraph 10' of the return filed in the writ petition and as submitted by the learned Deputy Government Advocate before this Court, that Annexure A/4 list is only a provisional one and that the Government had not finalised the same. This being the position, no right was conferred on anybody included in the list, which was still to be considered and modified, by the Government if necessary; for which no opportunity of hearing is to be given by the State to anybody. This being the position, no right was conferred on anybody included in the list, which was still to be considered and modified, by the Government if necessary; for which no opportunity of hearing is to be given by the State to anybody. It is also settled law that, even if the select list is finalised and a person is given a placement in such select list, that by itself would not confer any vested right to get appointed, in view of the law declared by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Shankarshan Dash v. Union of India { (1991) 3 SCC 47 }. In the said circumstance, the alleged defect pointed out from the part of the Respondents with regard to the course pursued by the Writ Petitioners/Appellants does not stand in the eye of law. 29. As noted already, Annexure A/2 Advertisement was a combined notification for recruitment to the posts in question, in three different Departments; namely the Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Mining & Geology Department and PWD, which fields are governed by three separate Rules. In the case of recruitment in the Panchayat & Rural Development Department, the 2011 Rules' specifically provide for reckoning of the higher qualification; which is consciously absent in the case of 2008 Rules' dealing with the Mining & Geology Department and the 2016 Rules' dealing with the PWD (involved herein). The position in this regard stands conceded from the part of the Respondents. It is also relevant to note that, because of the absence of any such enabling rule to reckon the higher qualification presupposing the lower qualification for recruitment in the Mining & Geology Department, the Government has already taken a decision to modify the list by excluding the candidates having higher qualifications and to confine the same only to the specific qualification as contained in the Rules/Notification. This has been taken note of by the learned Single Judge in 'paragraph 21' of the judgment and it is accordingly, that a direction has been given in this regard as contained in paragraph 29, directing the Respondent/State to reconstruct the list accordingly. Despite the fact that the rule position is exactly same in the PWD (as in the case of Mining & Geology Department), why such a course was not pursued by the Respondent/ Government w.r.t. PWD is a matter of mystery, which cannot but be interdicted. 30. Despite the fact that the rule position is exactly same in the PWD (as in the case of Mining & Geology Department), why such a course was not pursued by the Respondent/ Government w.r.t. PWD is a matter of mystery, which cannot but be interdicted. 30. In the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any justification for the Respondents to have provided a differential treatment for recruitment to the post of Assistant Draughtsman in the 'PWD', unlike the course sought to be pursued in respect of the 'Mining & Geology Department', having exactly similar rules governing the eligibility conditions/qualifications as notified in Annexure A/2. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge stands set aside. Since Annexure A/4 list is stated as only a 'provisional list', we do not find it necessary to set aside the same; but for directing that Annexure A/4 provisional list shall be finalised by reckoning the qualification strictly in conformity with the Annexure A/3 Rules and as notified in Annexure A/2 Advertisement; i.e. without reckoning any higher qualifications, for want of specific enabling provision in this regard. It is ordered accordingly. The said exercise shall be done as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the proceedings of the selection and appointment shall be taken to its logical conclusion without further delay. 31. The appeal stands allowed. No cost.