JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr.D.G.Shukla waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Kurven Desai waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent No.2. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: “(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction and/or writ in the nature of certiorari and/or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned selection of the candidates holding Degree and ignoring the claim of the Diploma Holders, as illegal and against the Recruitment Rules and against the Advertisement issued by the Selection Board; (B) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to keep 2 posts vacant for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil); (C) Any other and such further relief as may be deemed fit just and proper may be granted in the interest of justice together with costs” 3. Heard learned advocate Mr.T.R.Mishra for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr.D.G.Shukla for Respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Kurven Desai for Respondent No.2. 4.1 It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to an advertisement published by Respondent No.1 in the year 2016 for the posts of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil), which is Class-III post, which were to be filled up by way of direct recruitment, the petitioners applied for the said posts. 4.2 Both the petitioners are diploma holders in Civil Engineering and they were fulfilling the educational criteria prescribed for being appointed for the said post. According to the petitioners, in the advertisement, more particularly Clause-3 and 3.1 refers to about age limit and educational qualification. In all, there were three educational qualifications prescribed, however, for the purpose of determining the issue on hand, what is important is the educational qualification in respect of Civil Engineering and not about basic knowledge of computer or knowledge of Gujarati and Hindi language. Aforesaid relevant educational qualification is prescribed in advertisement No.1/2016-17 for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) produced at Annexure-A i.e. at page:19 of the petition. 4.3 The educational qualification for the post of the Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) Class-III as per the in the superior Panchayat Service Recruitment Rules, 2014, is described in Rule 3b as under: “3. Aforesaid relevant educational qualification is prescribed in advertisement No.1/2016-17 for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) produced at Annexure-A i.e. at page:19 of the petition. 4.3 The educational qualification for the post of the Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) Class-III as per the in the superior Panchayat Service Recruitment Rules, 2014, is described in Rule 3b as under: “3. To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post mentioned in rule 2, a candidate shall – (a) xxx xxx (b) possess a Diploma in Civil Engineering obtained from Technical Examination Board or any of the Universities or institutions established or incorporated by or under the Central or State Act in India; or any other educational institution recognized as such or declared as deemed to be a University under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Government.” 4.4 The grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, petitioners appeared in the examination and secured reasonably good marks, however, though the educational qualification prescribed for being appointed on the post was Diploma in Civil Engineering, the Respondent No.1 considered the persons who were having Degree in Civil Engineering and, therefore, the entire selection process is defective as the same has not been carried out strictly in accordance with the Rules and though the post was meant only for Diploma holders by considering candidatures of Degree Holders also a gross injustice has been done to the Diploma holders and had the Degree holders not been selected, the present petitioners could have found their place in the select list and could have been selected and, therefore, on the aforesaid ground the petitioners have challenged the selection to the extent that it has selected the degree holders and given appointment to them. 5.1 Learned advocate Mr.T.R.Mishra appearing for the petitioners pointed out from the recruitment rules, which are produced at page:31 of the petition, more particularly by relying upon Rule 3b, which prescribed for educational qualification, states that the language of the aforesaid Rules suggests that only the Diploma holders in Civil Engineering were eligible and entitled for being considered for appointment for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil). The Rule does not specify that even the Degree holders in Civil Engineering Branch also will be considered and, therefore, considering the B.E.Civil (Degree Holders) would amount to relaxing the recruitment rules without following due procedure and, therefore, entire selection is defective and the same would be vitiated on that ground. 5.2 Learned advocate Mr.Mishra further submitted that in the year 2022 the very authority published an advertisement for recruitment of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) and in that examination they have not allowed the persons having Degree in Civil Engineering to participate in recruitment process. Even their online applications were not accepted and, therefore, some persons having Degree in Civil Engineering approached this Court and it is only after intervention of this Court that their applications have been accepted by the respondent pursuant to the various orders passed by this Court. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra draws attention of this Court to the order dated 16.03.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.5397 of 2022 in case of Badiyavadra Jaydip Bhikhabhai vs. State of Gujarat, order dated 17.03.2022 in Special Civil Application No.5620 of 2022 in case of Shah Shubham Chimanlal vs. State of Gujarat and the order dated 09.05.2022 in Special Civil Application No.8535 of 2022 in case of Chiragkumar Chetanbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat whereby, by way of interim orders passed by this Court, the application forms of degree holders were accepted and the main matters are pending. 5.2.1 Relying upon aforesaid orders, learned advocate Mr.Mishra submitted that the respondents have taken two contradictory stands with regard to the recruitment, which has taken place pursuant to the advertisement published in the year 2016 when the Recruitment took place in the year 2017, the respondents have considered the persons having degree in civil engineering for being appointed for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil) and thereafter they have changed their stand and in recent recruitment they have not permitted degree holders to apply for the aforesaid post. He submitted that though there is no change in the Rules, the respondents have changed their stand conveniently and, therefore, considering the fact that recently respondents have discarded the persons having degree in Civil Engineering, the recruitment of 2017 for which the present petition is preferred is defective and, therefore, entire select list insofar as it selects the persons having degree in Civil Engineering is required to be quashed and set aside. 5.3 Learned advocate Mr.T.R.Mishra, in support of his submissions, relied upon the following decisions; (i) Allahabad Full Bench decision in case of Deepak Singh and 9 others vs. State of U.P. and 8 others dated 23.07.2009 rendered in Writ – A No.- 24273 of 2018 and allied matters; (ii) rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Suraj Prakash Gupta and others vs. State of J & K and others, dated 28.04.2000 in Appeal (Civil) No.3034 of 2000; (iii) common oral order dated 05.05.2022 of Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.429 of 2022 in Special Civil Application No.19220 of 2018 in case of Laljibhai Narsibhai Prajapati vs. State of Gujarat; (iv) common CAV judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Dhartibahen Divyakantbhai Parmar and 109 others vs. State of Gujarat and 2 others in Special Civil Application No.19220 of 2018 and allied matters. 5.3.1 By relying upon decision of Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in case of Deepak Singh & 9 others vs. State of U.P. & 8 others rendered on 23.07.2019 in Writ – A No.-24273 of 2018 and allied matters, learned advocate Mr.Mishra submitted that diploma in engineering and degree in engineering are two different qualifications and when the advertisement based upon the Rules is meant for diploma holders, the respondents were not justified in allowing degree holders to appear in the examination and in appointing them. He submitted that Full Bench of Allahabad High Court has considered several judgments on the issue and ultimately held that degree holders are excluded from the zone of consideration for appointment as Junior Engineer. He submitted that in similar set of facts, the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court held that the degree holders were ineligible to participate in selection process of Junior Engineer. He submitted that in similar set of facts, the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court held that the degree holders were ineligible to participate in selection process of Junior Engineer. 5.3.2 By relying upon aforesaid judgment, learned advocate Mr.Mishra submitted that since the degree holders cannot be said to be having ‘equal’ or ‘higher’ qualification as compared to diploma holders, when the Rule has specifically prescribed for appointment of diploma holders, the Government has committed gross error while allowing the degree holders to participate in the selection process and thereby by appointing them on the post advertised and, therefore, in view of that serious error committed by the respondents in the entire selection process, the selection process is faulty and the same is required to be quashed and set aside. 5.4 Learned advocate Mr.Mishra then relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Suraj Prakash Gupta & Ors. vs. State of J & K & Ors. (supra) and by relying upon the said decision, he submitted that by permitting the degree holders in Civil Engineering to participate in the selection process, the respondents have relaxed the criteria for the candidates for being appointed on the post of Additional Assistant Engineer, which is not permitted by law. 5.4.1 Relying upon aforesaid judgment, learned advocate Mr.Mishra also submitted that before relaxing any condition or rules related to appointment, necessary procedures were required to be followed and the same were required to be done in consultation with the Public Service Commission and thereafter only upon publishing the notification such relaxation could have taken place. In the instant case, the respondents have relaxed the educational criteria of the eligible candidates without consulting Public Service Commission or without following any procedure or publication of any notification and, therefore, the said relaxation is without any basis or authority under the Law and, therefore, it is illegal and, therefore, as the selection is based upon that illegal relaxation, entire selection process would be vitiated and the persons who possesses degree in Civil Engineering are required to be considered ineligible for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer and selection process as far as it selects persons having degree in Civil Engineering are required to be quashed and set aside. 5.5 Learned advocate Mr.Mishra then relied upon common CAV judgment dated 02.02.2022 in case of Dhartibahen Divyakantbhai Parmar and others vs. State of Gujarat (supra) and by relying upon para:22 of the said judgment submitted that respondent authorities are bound by the provisions of the advertisement and no benefit of relaxation be granted de hors the advertisement rules and criteria stipulated in advertisement. 5.6 He further submitted that the respondents could not have relaxed the educational criteria without issuing notification amending the Rules. He also pointed out that the aforesaid view taken by the coordinate Bench has been confirmed by the Division Bench vide common oral order dated 05.05.2022 in Letters Patent Appeal No.429 of 2022 and allied matters in case of Laljibhai Narsibhai Prajapati (supra). 5.6.1 By relying upon aforesaid judgments, Mr.Mishra submitted that since the posts were meant for diploma holders having diploma in Civil Engineering and yet the respondents considered degree holders in Civil Engineering to participate in selection process and appointed them, the entire selection process is not in consonance with the Rules for recruitment and, therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. 6.1 Learned advocate Mr.D.G.Shukla appearing for Respondent No.1 – Gujarat Panchayat Services Selection Board, who published the advertisement, conducted the examination, declared the result and forwarded recommendation based upon selection process to different panchayats for appointment, submitted that this petition is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party as well as on the ground of delay. From the affidavit-in-reply filed by Respondent No.1, he pointed out that the advertisement pursuant to which selection has taken place and is under challenge was published on 16.11.2016 for 387 posts of Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil). He pointed out from the affidavit-in-reply that after the examination was conducted on 08.01.2017 and merit list was published on 19.01.2017 on the district allotment process took place on 17.03.2017 and thereafter final select and recommendation-cum-district allotment list was published on the same day i.e. on 17.03.2017 consisting of 387 candidates. Thereafter on 20.07.2017, the Board published additional final select and recommendation-cum-district allotment list consisting of 41 candidates. The aforesaid list dated 20.07.20217 was published to fill up the vacant post arisen due to non-resumption of duties or resignation by some of the candidates. Thereafter on 20.07.2017, the Board published additional final select and recommendation-cum-district allotment list consisting of 41 candidates. The aforesaid list dated 20.07.20217 was published to fill up the vacant post arisen due to non-resumption of duties or resignation by some of the candidates. Thereafter another final select list of 9 candidates being second additional final select list was also published on 22.09.2017 by the Respondent No.1 to fill up the posts which have fallen vacant due to resignation by some candidates. 6.2 By pointing out aforesaid dates and figures, learned advocate Mr.Shukla requested the Court to turn to para:4.4 of the affidavit-in-reply, wherein tabular chart of marks obtained by selected candidates in various category is placed on record. The aforesaid chart produced in the affidavit-in-reply is reproduced herein below: Marks obtained by last selected Candidate Category Final select and recommendation cum district allotment list date 17.03.2017 Final select and recommendation cum district allotment list date 20.07.2017 Final select and recommendation cum district allotment list date 22.09.2017 Final select and recommendation cum district allotment list date 18.01.2018 Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female General 88.700 71.400 88.000 70.400 87.900 70.100 87.500 - SC 81.300 67.300 81.200 62.400 81.165 - - - ST 71.400 58.500 70.900 58.400 70.500 - - - SEBC 81.900 58.600 81.400 58.100 81.400 57.800 - - 6.3 By drawing attention of this Court to aforesaid chart and pointing out the fact that both the petitioners belonged to SEBC category wherein in case of male candidate, the last candidate selected has obtained 81.900 marks wherein present petitioners have obtained 81.100 and 79.500 marks respectively, which is much less the marks obtained by the last selected candidate. 6.4 Learned advocate Mr.Shukla further submitted that after 22.09.2017 there was no select list as far as male candidate is concerned and, therefore, selection process was virtually over. Thereafter petition was preferred on 26.12.2017 as can be seen from the fact that petition is affirmed on 26.12.2017. Learned advocate Mr.Shukla submitted that the matter for the first time came up before this Court on 12.01.2018 and on that day Court was pleased to issue notice to the respondent. Thereafter petition was preferred on 26.12.2017 as can be seen from the fact that petition is affirmed on 26.12.2017. Learned advocate Mr.Shukla submitted that the matter for the first time came up before this Court on 12.01.2018 and on that day Court was pleased to issue notice to the respondent. 6.5 By pointing out aforesaid details, learned advocate Mr.Shukla submitted that when examination was conducted on 08.01.2017 and merit list was published on 19.01.2017 and entire selection process was over in the month of September, 2017, after selection was over about three to four months thereafter, present petition was preferred and, therefore, by that time the selected candidates were appointed and equity was created in their favour. Despite that, by way of this petition while challenging the selection, the petitioners have not jointed selected candidates and therefore petition is required to be dismissed without entering into merits on the ground of non-joinder of party and delay as well. 6.6 After making aforesaid submissions about maintainability of petition, learned advocate Mr.Shukla submitted that Rule 3b which has already been reproduced in forgoing paras does not prescribe that only candidate having diploma in Civil Engineering can be considered for the post. 6.7 Mr.Shukla draws attention of this Court to the fact that Rule 3b specifically states about an equivalent qualification recognized by the Government. He submitted that in absence of there being any specific exclusion of persons having degree in Civil Engineering, the persons having degree or any other equivalent qualification in Civil Engineering, cannot be said to be ineligible for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer. He states that the aforesaid Rule in view of the fact that it also provides for equivalent qualification also makes the persons having degree eligible to compete with other persons having diploma and hence those persons were permitted to take part in selection process and upon successfully clearing the examination with higher merit, they were recommended for appointment to the post to the various district panchayat. 6.8 Learned advocate Mr.Shukla drew attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent wherein it is specifically stated in para:5 that the Respondent Board in earlier recruitment of 2013-14 and 2015-16 also for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer have selected the candidates possessing B.E. (civil) and they are working with different district panchayats since several years. 6.8 Learned advocate Mr.Shukla drew attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent wherein it is specifically stated in para:5 that the Respondent Board in earlier recruitment of 2013-14 and 2015-16 also for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer have selected the candidates possessing B.E. (civil) and they are working with different district panchayats since several years. 6.9 As far as the contention, though no submission in respect of that was made by learned advocate Mr.Mishra but was taken in the petition that in other Board, there is specific provision in respect of recruitment rules that class-III recruitment on the similar post is required to be made only by the candidates possessing diploma in Civil Engineering only. In respect of the said submission, learned advocate Mr.Shukla submitted that there is a specific clause excluding the persons having degree in the Civil Engineering which is missing in present Rules and therefore in absence of there being any specific exclusion clause in the Rules or in the advertisement, the persons having degree in the Civil Engineering were permitted to participate in the selection process and accordingly they participated in the selection process and cleared it with higher merits and ultimately were appointed. Learned advocate Mr.Shukla submitted that the body which conducts the examination i.e. the present board and other bodies are different and, therefore, the Rules may be different. There cannot be any same for recruitment of various posts under various organizations. As there are different organizations, every organizations will have their separate recruitment rules based on their requirements and, therefore, since present recruitment was based on the Rules framed for this very post and the same is in consonance with the recruitment rules, the petition is misconceived and, therefore, the same is required to be dismissed. 6.10 Learned advocate Mr.Shukla relied upon following judgments. (i) (2010) 15 SCC 596, Jyoti K.K. Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission; (ii) (2014) 16 SCC 187 , Ranjan Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and others; (iii) (2019) 2 SCC 404 , Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others; and (iv) (2012) 3 SCC 129 , Chandrakala Trivedi vs. State of Rajasthan and others. (i) (2010) 15 SCC 596, Jyoti K.K. Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission; (ii) (2014) 16 SCC 187 , Ranjan Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and others; (iii) (2019) 2 SCC 404 , Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others; and (iv) (2012) 3 SCC 129 , Chandrakala Trivedi vs. State of Rajasthan and others. 6.10.1 By relying upon the judgment in case of Jyoti K.K. vs. Kerala Public Service Commission (supra), more particularly relying upon paras: 7, 8, 9 and 10 thereof, learned advocate Mr.Shukla Submitted that the higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of lower qualification prescribed for the post in order to attract the part of the Rule. If a person has acquired higher qualification in same faculty such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of lower qualification prescribed for the post. He submitted that even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment, has categorically observed that in case if the Government is of the view that only diploma holder should have applied for a particular post, in that case, there should be a specific exclusion. In the instant case in absence of there being any specific exclusion whereby degree holders have been held to be ineligible for applying for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer, the recruitment has taken place in consonance with the rules framed and, therefore, petition is required to be dismissed. 6.11 Thereafter learned advocate Mr.Shukla relied upon judgment in case of Chandrakala Trivedi vs. State of Rajasthan and others (supra) more particularly by relying upon paras: 5 to 10 submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has interpreted the word ‘equivalent’. While considering the meaning of word ‘equivalent’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that it must be given a reasonable meaning by using expression. Equivalent one means that there are some degree of flexibility or adjustment which do not lower the stated requirement. There has to be some difference between ‘ what is equivalent’ and ‘what is exact’. In the instant case, the Rules specifically provide for diploma in the Civil Engineering or any ‘equivalent’ educational qualification recognized by the Government. Equivalent one means that there are some degree of flexibility or adjustment which do not lower the stated requirement. There has to be some difference between ‘ what is equivalent’ and ‘what is exact’. In the instant case, the Rules specifically provide for diploma in the Civil Engineering or any ‘equivalent’ educational qualification recognized by the Government. In view of the fact that Rules specifically provide for equivalent educational qualification as well, the degree holders, in the same faculty i.e. B.E. (Civil Engineering) can be said to be persons having equivalent qualification and therefore also the submission of learned advocate Mr.Mishra is ill-founded and may not be accepted. 6.12 Thereafter learned advocate Mr.Shukla relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others (supra) and submitted that this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has very limited scope to interfere in the recruitment process as the recruitment process is a matter of policy. He further submitted that the submission of learned advocate Mr.Mishra that in the year 2018 recruitment the persons having degree in Civil Engineering were considered eligible to apply for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer whereas in 2022 recruitment those persons were held to be ineligible for the purpose of taking part in the selection process is concerned, considering the fact that this is a policy decision taken by the Government taking into consideration various socio economic aspect, the same may not be interfered with by this Court being policy decision and, therefore, aforesaid submission may not be considered to determine the issue which has cropped in the year 2017 and the petition is required to be decided only on the basis of facts which were there in the year 2017 and not on the basis of any subsequent event or development. 6.13 Lastly by relying upon decision in the case of Ranjan Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and others (supra), more particularly by relying upon para:13 of the aforesaid judgment, learned advocate Mr.Shukla submitted that in case where all the appointees are not impleaded, the writ petition was held to be defective by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no relief could have been granted to the writ petitioners. By relying upon aforesaid decisions, learned advocate Mr.Shukla prayed for dismissal of petition. By relying upon aforesaid decisions, learned advocate Mr.Shukla prayed for dismissal of petition. 7.1 I have heard learned advocates for the parties, perused the records and considered various authorities cited by learned advocates for the parties. 7.2 The short issue involved in this petition is that whether a person having degree in Civil Engineering can be said to be eligible for applying for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer and whether if they were permitted to participate in the recruitment process on account of that whether it can be said that the selection process was not undertaken in consonance with the Rules framed for the aforesaid post. 7.3 To examine the aforesaid issue, once again it would be relevant to reproduce Rule 3b of the Rules of 2013 which reads as under: “3. To be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post mentioned in rule 2, a candidate shall – (a) xxx xxx (b) possess a Diploma in Civil Engineering obtained from Technical Examination Board or any of the Universities or institutions established or incorporated by or under the Central or State Act in India; or any other educational institution recognized as such or declared as deemed to be a University under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Government.” 7.4 While prescribing educational qualification to be of diploma holder in Civil Engineering, Rules also prescribe that any equivalent qualification recognized by the Government also shall be considered to be valid and, therefore, once the Rules itself prescribe that the equivalent qualification also can be considered valid for applying for the aforesaid post in that case what is required to be seen is how the word ‘equivalent’ has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7.5 In case of Chandrakala Trivedi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras:5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 observed as under: “5. The case of the appellant has, however, been dismissed both by the Single Judge and also by the Division Bench of the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that as the appellant has not passed the Senior Secondary Examination, which is the basic qualification for the post in question, the candidature of the appellant cannot be considered. 6. We fail to appreciate the aforesaid view taken by the High Court. 6. We fail to appreciate the aforesaid view taken by the High Court. We find that from the qualifications which have been mentioned, it is made clear that the basic qualification is Senior Secondary or Intermediate or its equivalent. We find that the appellant on the basis of her qualification was provisionally selected after she had submitted her requisite testimonials. 7. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has given a finding that the higher qualification is not the substitute for the qualification of Senior Secondary or Intermediate. In the instant case, we fail to appreciate the reasoning of the High Court to the extent that it does not consider higher qualification as equivalent to the qualification of passing Senior Secondary examination even in respect of a candidate who was provisionally selected. 8. The word 'equivalent' must be given a reasonable meaning. By using the expression, 'equivalent' one means that there are some degrees of flexibility or adjustment which do not lower the stated requirement. There has to be some difference between what is equivalent and what is exact. Apart from that after a person is provisionally selected, a certain degree of reasonable expectation of the selection being continued also comes into existence. 9. Considering these aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the appellant should be considered reasonably and the provisional appointment which was given to her should not be cancelled. We order accordingly. However, we make it clear that we are passing this order taking in our view the special facts and circumstances of the case.” 7.6 The aforesaid observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court makes it abundantly clear that the word ‘equivalent’ must be given a reasonable meaning and flexibility as it means some degree of flexibility or adjustment and there is difference between the word ‘equivalent’ and ‘exact’. In the instant case, when the Rules specifically provide for any equivalent educational qualification, meaning thereby the Rules itself is very clear that a person having diploma or any other equivalent qualification may be permitted to take part in selection process. 7.7 Now in light of aforesaid observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the view taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jyoti K.K. vs. Kerala Public Service Commission (supra) is required to be considered. 7.7 Now in light of aforesaid observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the view taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jyoti K.K. vs. Kerala Public Service Commission (supra) is required to be considered. In case of Jyoti K.K. vs. Kerala Public Service Commission reported in (2010) 15 SCC in para:7 to 10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “7. 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 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 qualification has 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. 8. Rule 10 (a) (ii) reads as follows: "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." 9. 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. 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 qualification 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. 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. 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 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. 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 appellants would amount to fraud on the public. 10. However, we must notice one aspect of the matter. The diploma holders who had been selected by the Public Service Commission have already been appointed and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for us to disturb those appointments. They shall continue in such appointments. Such of those eligible degree holders who fulfil the qualifications referred to above and found suitable to be appointed shall be appointed taking note of the vacancies which are available within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 7.8 While making aforesaid observations, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically observed that when qualification has been set out under relevant Rules the same cannot be, in any manner, whittled down and different qualification cannot be adopted. A higher qualification presupposes the acquisition of lower qualification and therefore higher qualification shall be considered to be sufficient for the post. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also categorically observed in the aforesaid judgment that in event the Government is of the view that only diploma holders should have applied for the post of Sub-engineers but not all those, who possess higher qualification, either these Rules should have excluded in respect of candidates who possess higher qualification or position should have been made clear that degree holders shall not eligible to apply for such post. The aforesaid observations makes it crystal clear that in absence of there being any exclusion clause in advertisement or in the Rules, whereby any specific class of people, who are degree holders in the instant case, are not barred to participate in the selection process, the submission made by learned advocate Mr.Mishra that Rules provide only for diploma holders to apply for the post of Additional Assistant Engineer cannot be accepted. 7.9 Further, as far as submission of learned advocate Mr.Mishra that the very respondent is taking two contradictory stands in respect of recruitment that has taken place in the year 2017 and the recruitment that has taken place in the year 2022 for which certain petitions are pending before this Court is concerned, considering the fact that as per present Roster, this Court is taking up only the matters upto 2018 and those matters are not listed before this Court and also considering the fact that those petitions are in respect of certain other developments based on which the Government as well as respondents have changed their decision which is also subject matter of challenge before the coordinate bench of this Court, it would not be proper for this Court to opine anything about those petitions or to opine anything in respect of submission of Mr.Mishra that the respondents have taken different stand at different time as the same may have some impact on other petitions which are pending before this Court and, therefore, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enter into those aspects and this Court has examined the present petition only on the basis of material available on record. 7.10 As far as judgments cited by learned advocate Mr.Mishra are concerned, so far as judgment of Full Bench decision in case of Deepak Singh & 9 others vs. State of U.P & 8 others (supra) is concerned, though the aforesaid judgment has been delivered taking into consideration various judgments in respect of recruitment and which qualification can be said to be higher or equivalent, considering the fact that there are different Rules based upon which different recruitment takes place and the facts of that case are not similar to the facts of the present case, judgments relied upon by learned advocate Mr.Mishra would not help the petitioners. 7.11 Insofar as judgment in case of in case of Suraj Prakash Gupta and others vs. State of J & K and others [supra] is concerned, the same is in respect of seniority. Further, in this petition, Rules are not relaxed but the Rules are adhered to and by interpreting the Rules, the degree holders were held to be eligible to participate in the selection process that judgment is also not applicable in the facts of the present case. Further, in this petition, Rules are not relaxed but the Rules are adhered to and by interpreting the Rules, the degree holders were held to be eligible to participate in the selection process that judgment is also not applicable in the facts of the present case. 7.12 As far as common CAV judgment dated 02.02.2022 in case of Dharatibahen Divyakantbhai Parmar and 109 others vs. State of Gujarat and 2 others (supra), which has been confirmed by Division Bench and hence the reliance placed by learned advocate Mr.Mishra upon observations made by learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court while dismissing Letters Patent Appeal are concerned, as the learned Single Judge held in favour of the petitioners, upon going through those judgment and order of the Division Bench confirming the CAV judgment, this Court is of the view that issue on hand before the learned coordinate Bench was different. In that petition, the issue was in respect of relaxation in experience of three years as the petitioners of those petitions were falling of sort of prescribed experience of three years by 40 to 45 days. Considering the fact that present petition is not in respect of any relaxation, nor any relaxation has been challenged by the petitioners and what is under challenge is the manner in which the recruitment has taken place, I am of the view that those judgments are not applicable in the facts of the present case. 7.13 Even otherwise Law is well settled that once the person participates in the selection process without any objection, at the end of selection process after having declared unsuccessful he cannot challenge the selection process. In the instant case, petition is filed questioning the appointment of degree holders after the selection list was published and not during the selection process, as the petitioners have participated in selection process without any objection on their part. Even otherwise also, this petition is not maintainable after the petitioners having participated in the selection process and failed to secure the marks which can bring them in selection list. Even otherwise also, this petition is not maintainable after the petitioners having participated in the selection process and failed to secure the marks which can bring them in selection list. 7.14 In view of aforesaid discussion, since the present petitioners are diploma holders in Civil Engineering branch which is the same faculty and the Rules prescribed for any equivalent educational qualification apart from diploma holders as the degree holders presupposes the qualification of diploma, the respondents have rightly allowed them to participate in the selection process and pursuant to their successfully clearing the examination and being higher on merit they have been recommended for appointment and they have been appointed and also considering the fact that those persons are not joined as party respondent in the present petition, I do not see any reason to entertain this petition. Accordingly, this petition is required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.