ORDER : VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J. 1. This Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging an order dated 20.12.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 14800 of 2021, whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the original petitioner. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present Appeal are as under: 2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that he had passed M.B.B.S. and D.G.O. (Diploma in Gynaecologist and Obstetrics). The respondent issued an advertisement, being Advertisement No.121/2019-20, for filling-up the post of Gynaecologist (Class-I) in Gujarat Health and Medical Service, for 274 vacancies. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted an online application on 27.12.2019 along with certificate of experience dated 06.09.2019. 2.2 It is further the case of the petitioner that by notice dated 06.05.2021, the petitioner was selected for document verification and was asked to upload online, the necessary documents/certificates during the period from 13.05.2021 to 24.05.2021. Accordingly, the petitioner uploaded all the relevant documents; more particularly, the Certificate of Experience dated 13.05.2021. 2.3 It is further the case of the petitioner that thereafter vide Notice dated 13.09.2021, the petitioner was declared ineligible for oral interview on the ground that he did not possess the prescribed experience, as per the Recruitment Rules and the provisions of the Advertisement. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 15.09.2021 to the appellant-original respondent No.1. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the captioned petition in which the petitioner had prayed for the following reliefs :- “(a) to admit this petition and to allow the same by issuing Notice for Final Disposal on returnable date; (b) to quash and set aside the impugned decision dated 13.09.2021 as per Annexure-G wrongfully declaring the petitioner as ineligible on the ground that he is not possession the prescribed experience as per the Recruitment Rules and Advertisement. (c) to direct the respondent to treat the petitioner as eligible for the post of Gynecologist, Class-I pursuant to the Advertisement No.121/2019-20 and to give him appointment as such, with all the consequential benefits as if he was given appointment along with the first candidate of the same recruitment process; (d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased, to stay the further process of recruitment of the posts in question; (e) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondents to call the petitioner for Oral Interview along with other candidates, subject to further orders of the Hon’ble Court;” 2.4 The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.12.2022 allowed the petition filed by the original petitioner and thereby directed the original respondent to appoint the petitioner on the post of Gynaecologist (Class-I) within stipulated time. The original respondent No. 1 – the present appellant has, therefore, preferred the present Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 3. Heard Mr. R.C. Jani, learned advocate for the appellant-original respondents, Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned advocate for respondent No.1-original petitioner and Mr. Ronak Raval, AGP for the respondent-State. 4. Mr. R.C. Jani, learned advocate appearing for the appellant-original respondents mainly submits that as per the advertisement issued by the appellant-Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC), a person having experience of two years in respective subject in the Government Hospital or Hospital owned, manage or controlled by the Non- Government Organization Hospital, or Trust Hospital, is eligible for appointment on the post in question. 5. Learned advocate for the appellant has referred to the Recruitment Rules for the post in question, which was framed on 04.10.2008. It is submitted that the post in question is governed by Specialist (Class-I) Recruitment Rules of 2008. Learned advocate for the appellant has in particular, referred to Rule 4 (c) (i) of the Recruitment Rules of 2008. Learned advocate would submit that as per the aforesaid Recruitment Rules, the candidate who is applying to such post should either own a hospital, or had manage a hospital, or controlled a hospital, which can be Non- Government Organization Hospital or Trust Hospital. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Jani has referred to the definition of own provided in ‘Black’s Law Dictionary’. The relevant pages of the said dictionary are produced before this Court for perusal. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Jani has referred to the definition of own provided in ‘Black’s Law Dictionary’. The relevant pages of the said dictionary are produced before this Court for perusal. The word ‘own’ is defined in the said dictionary as under: “Own. To have a good legal title; to hold property; to have a legal or rightful title to; to have; to possess.” 6. At the same time, Mr. Jani, learned advocate for the present appellant has also referred to the definition of ‘control’ given in the said dictionary, as under: “Control, v. To exercise restraining or directing influence over. To regulate; restrain; dominate; curb; to hold from action; overpower; counteract; govern. Control, n. Power or authority to manage, direct, superintend, restrict, regulate, govern, administer, or oversee.” 7. It is submitted that, as the original petitioner was not satisfying the conditions stipulated in the Recruitment Rules, and as per the certificate issued by the concerned Hospital, the petitioner was employed by the said Hospital, he is not eligible for the post in question, and therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected by the appellant herein. In spite of that, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order and thereby issued a direction to the present appellant to appoint the original petitioner on the post in question. Learned advocate for the appellant, therefore, urged that this appeal be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. K.B. Pujara appearing for respondent No. 1-original petitioner has opposed this appeal and referred to the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the petitioner possesses requisite qualification as per the Recruitment Rules and the petitioner is also having experience of two years; as provided in Rule 4 (c) (i) of the Rules of 2008. At this stage, learned advocate submitted that prior to issuance of the advertisement in question for the regular appointment for the post in question, advertisement was issued by the Commissioner Health for the appointment of Gynecologist (Class-I) on contractual basis. The petitioner also submitted an application, pursuant to the said advertisement, and in the said process also, the petitioner supplied the same experience certificate and the concerned respondent- authority has accepted the said certificate and issued an appointment order dated 22.06.2021. The petitioner also submitted an application, pursuant to the said advertisement, and in the said process also, the petitioner supplied the same experience certificate and the concerned respondent- authority has accepted the said certificate and issued an appointment order dated 22.06.2021. A copy of the said order is placed on page 63 of the compilation. 9. Mr. Pujara, learned advocate further submits that when for the same post and for the similar Rules, the petitioner was considered to be eligible, it is not open for the present appellant to now contend that the petitioner is not having requisite experience of the concerned Hospital. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that the present appeal may not be entertained, as the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while allowing the petition filed by the original petitioner. 10. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material placed on the record, it emerges that the Advertisement No. 121/2019-20 for filling up the post of Gynecologist (Class-I) in the Gujarat Health and Medical Service came to be issued by the original respondent for 274 vacancies. It is not in dispute that the petitioner submitted an online application, pursuant to the said advertisement. The petitioner also supplied requisite documents and the experience certificate. At this stage, the relevant clause of the advertisement is required to be referred. It is not in dispute that the petitioner submitted an online application, pursuant to the said advertisement. The petitioner also supplied requisite documents and the experience certificate. At this stage, the relevant clause of the advertisement is required to be referred. Clause 2 provides Educational Qualification and Experience, which reads as under: “A. Possess a degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery or as the case may be Bachelor of Dental Surgery or any of the University established or incorporated by or under the Central or State Act in India; or any other educational institution recognized as such declared to be a deemed as university under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956) or possess any other qualifications specified in First or Second Schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or as the case may be possess an equivalent qualification recognized by the Dental Council of India, and B. (I) Possess a post-graduate diploma in respective subject as shown in the Annexure against the each post, of the Universities established or incorporated by or under the Central or State Act in India; or possess an equivalent qualifications recognized by the Medical Council of India and have experience of two years in respective subject in government Hospital or owned manage respective subject in Government Hospital or owned manage or controlled by the, Non-Government Hospital or owned manage or controlled by the, Non-Government Organization or Trust Hospital or” 11. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to the relevant Recruitment Rules of 2008 which provides as under :- “4. to be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post mentioned in Rule (3) (b), candidate selection to the post mentioned in rule (3)(b), a candidate shall- (c)(i) possess a post-graduate diploma in respective subject as, shown in the Annexure against the each post, of the Universities established or incorporated by or under the Central or State Act in India; or possess an equivalent qualification recognized by the Medical council of India and have experience of two years in government Hospital or owned manage or controlled by the Non government Organization Hospital or Trust: 12. Thus from the relevant Clause of the advertisement as well as from the Recruitment Rules, it reveals that to be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post in question, the concerned candidate must possess requisite qualification and he must possess experience of two years in Government Hospital or Hospital owned manage or controlled by the Non government Organization Hospital or Trust Hospital. 13. Now, it is the case of the present appellant that the original petitioner had produced a certificate of experience [a copy of which is placed on record at page 42 of the compilation] which is issued by Shradhha Surgical Hospital in favour of the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the present appellant has not raised any doubt with regard to the said certificate and it is not the case of the appellant that the petitioner is not having two years experience. The only contention taken by the appellant is that the candidate who is applying to such post should either own a hospital or had manage a hospital or controlled a hospital which can be Non-Government organization Hospital or Trust Hospital. However, petitioner was merely employed by Shradhha Surgical Hospital. Thus, on this ground, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. 14. We are of the view that the aforesaid contention taken by the appellant is misconceived. Neither, the provisions stipulated in the advertisement nor the Recruitment Rules, remotely suggest that the candidate has to be the owner or the manager of the Hospital. Further, the same certificate has been accepted by the Government, while appointing the petitioner on adhoc/contractual basis. 15. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while passing the impugned order, and therefore, no interference is required. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. 16. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, Civil Application would not survive and the same is disposed of.