JUDGMENT : 1. Vide this order above mentioned appeals would be disposed of as they have arisen out of common order passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants had applied for the post of Driver (Fire) in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondents dated 30.12.2015. 3. However, respondents have erroneously declared the appellants ineligible on the ground that they did not have three years experience in heavy and light vehicle driving. The said condition incorporated in the advertisement, was contrary to the rules. 4. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1335/2016 titled as Shri Ahsan Ahmed Vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 04.08.2016, wherein it was held as under:- “I have considered rival submission of the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the qualification mentioned in the advertisement for the Post of Driver (Fire) is at variance to the qualification provided under the Rules of 1963. Learned counsel Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AAG, has fairly admitted that the Rules sought to be amended have been approved by the Minister on the initiation of process of selection but Gazette Notification for it has not been issued. The qualification given in the advertisement is as contemplated for amendment in the Rules. The respondents are not authorised to provide qualification different then what exist under the Rules. The advertisement or administrative order cannot supplant the statutory provisions. In the instant case, respondents have illegally substituted qualification of the post in question thereby petitioner have been declared ineligible. The qualification should have been as exist under the Rules. The action of the respondents cannot be said to be proper and, accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed with a direction to the respondents to consider qualification of the petitioners in reference to the Rules of 1963 as were existing on the last date of submission of applications. The respondents would not be guided by the qualification given in the advertisement. If the petitioners are in possession of the qualification given under the Rules, then they would be eligible for the post. In pursuance to the interim order, they have already appeared in the selection process thus their result be declared, if not already declared. The respondents would not be guided by the qualification given in the advertisement. If the petitioners are in possession of the qualification given under the Rules, then they would be eligible for the post. In pursuance to the interim order, they have already appeared in the selection process thus their result be declared, if not already declared. If the petitioners remain aggrieved with any other issue then would be at liberty to take legal recourse for it. With the aforesaid, all the writ petitions are allowed with the direction aforesaid.” 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the appeals and has submitted that the appellants had applied for the post of Driver (Fire). All the appellants were not having a valid driving license to drive a heavy transport vehicle till the last date of submission of the application forms. Hence, as per the advertisement as well as the Rules, they were not eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Driver (Fire). Appellants, if appointed as Driver (Fire) would be required to drive light as well as heavy transport vehicle. 6. Admittedly, appellants had applied for the post of Driver (Fire) in pursuance to the advertisement dated 30.12.2015. The last date for submission of online application form was extended from 03.02.2016 to 06.02.2016. 7. As per The Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1963’), Drivers (Fire) were required to have driving license under the Motor Vehicles Act. 8. Thus, a reading of the Rules of 1963 reveals that, for the post of Driver (Fire), the candidate was required to have a valid driving license under the Motor Vehicles Act. Admittedly, the persons, who have to be appointed to the post of Driver (Fire), would be required to drive a heavy as well as a light transport vehicle. Therefore, as per the Rules of 1963, a candidate must be having a valid driving license authorising him to drive a heavy as well as light transport vehicle. 9. Admittedly, the persons, who have to be appointed to the post of Driver (Fire), would be required to drive a heavy as well as a light transport vehicle. Therefore, as per the Rules of 1963, a candidate must be having a valid driving license authorising him to drive a heavy as well as light transport vehicle. 9. Although, the candidature of the appellants was rejected on the ground that they were not having requisite experience of driving a heavy transport vehicle till the last date of submission of the application forms, but the fact remains that the appellants admittedly did not possess a valid driving license authorizing them to drive a heavy transport vehicle, till the last date of submission of application forms. In these circumstances, it can be said that the appellants who were not having a valid driving license authorising them to drive a heavy transport vehicle, till the last date of submission of application forms, therefore, their candidature was liable to be rejected for consideration to the post of Driver (Fire). The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants fails to advance the case of the appellants as the appellants were not having requisite qualification as per the Rules of 1963. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Single Judge had, thus, rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.