JUDGMENT : J.J. Munir, J. 1. The petitioner has instituted this writ petition praying that a mandamus be issued, directing the respondents to consider his case by allowing him to participate in the interview for selection of a Junior Engineer (Trainee), bearing Post Code No.524, pursuant to Advertisement No. 5/VSA/2015 J.E. issued by the Electricity Service Commission, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow (for short, 'the Service Commission'). He has further sought a mandamus to the effect that the respondents be commanded to keep one post of a Junior Engineer (Trainee), bearing Post Code No.524, relative to the last mentioned advertisement, unfilled. 2. The petitioner says that he passed the Secondary School Examination-2007 and the Senior Schools Certificate Examination-2009, both conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Examination. He earned his degree of Bachelor of Technology in Civil Engineering from the National Institute of Technology, Patna in the year 2013-14. The Service Commission issued Advertisement No. 5/VSA/2015 J.E., inviting applications online from eligible candidates for a consideration for appointment as Junior Engineer (Trainee), bearing Post Code Nos.521 and 524. The essential qualifications mentioned in the advertisement vide Clause 4 read: “4. Essential Qualification: (A) Candidates should have thorough knowledge of Hindi (Devnagri script). If the candidate has not passed High school or equivalent examination in Hindi, he/she has to clear an exam conducted by the Registrar, Department Examination Govt. Of Uttar Pradesh within 3 years of joining. (B) A candidate must have passed (I) "Three years Diploma examination in Electrical Engineering/ Civil Engineering awarded by Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh OR a Diploma, equivalent thereto, recognized by the State Government" OR (II) "Three years All India Diploma Examination in Electrical Engineering/Civil Engineering conducted by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Govt. of India" OR (III) "Diploma Examination in Electrical Engineering/ Civil Engineering conducted by any of the Universities in India incorporated by an Act of the Central/State legislature." Note:- (1) Candidates having received Diploma through Distance Learning Education Programme are Not Eligible to apply for the above posts. (2) Candidates "having Diploma received on the basis of length of service (without passing the Diploma examination) are also Not Eligible to apply for the above posts.” 3. The petitioner says that he fulfilled all the necessary criteria and eligibility for a consideration of his candidature for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Trainee), bearing Post Code No.524. (2) Candidates "having Diploma received on the basis of length of service (without passing the Diploma examination) are also Not Eligible to apply for the above posts.” 3. The petitioner says that he fulfilled all the necessary criteria and eligibility for a consideration of his candidature for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Trainee), bearing Post Code No.524. It is his case that the selection process involved a written test and interview. The petitioner sat the written test, carrying 200 marks, comprising a total of 200 questions. The petitioner had applied online furnishing details of his academic qualifications. He was allowed to participate in the written examination, evident from the fact that he was issued with an admit card for the purpose. It is averred by the petitioner that his online application form for the post of a Junior Engineer (Trainee), bearing Post Code No.524 shows that he had given details of the qualifying examination, which he mentioned as a B.Tech. Degree earned in the year 2014 from the National Institute of Technology, Patna. It was after verifying the said application that the petitioner was allowed to participate in the written test. The petitioner's result for the written examination was declared on 28.10.2015 and he figured amongst the candidates selected for Post Code No.524 with Roll No.2030175. He was shortlisted to participate in the interview. He received a call letter dated 07.11.2015, requiring him to appear at the Electricity (Trainee) Centre, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow on 18.11.2015 at 08:00 a.m.. The petitioner was asked to bring along all the original records of his academic qualifications. The petitioner appeared at the venue of interview, reporting within time on 18.11.2015 along with all original records of his academic qualifications. 4. The candidates were given a checklist by the officials of the Service Commission, which was to be filled up by candidates themselves. The petitioner was also issued the checklist, which he duly filled up. The said list was taken back by the officials of the Service Commission, filled up by him. The officials of the Service Commission at this stage informed the petitioner that since he had earned a B.Tech. Degree, he cannot be allowed to participate in the interview. The petitioner pleads that the checklist, that he had handed over duly filled up, was returned to him unacknowledged. He was denied interview. The officials of the Service Commission at this stage informed the petitioner that since he had earned a B.Tech. Degree, he cannot be allowed to participate in the interview. The petitioner pleads that the checklist, that he had handed over duly filled up, was returned to him unacknowledged. He was denied interview. He was not communicated anything in writing by the Service Commission why his candidature was not regarded competent. 5. It is the petitioner's case that a perusal of the qualifications carried in the advertisement shows that the minimum qualification required for the post of a Junior Engineer (Trainee) is a Three year Diploma in Electrical/Civil Engineering, but there is no bar that a candidate with a higher and better qualification would not have valid candidature, for the reason alone that he does not hold a Diploma in Civil Engineering. The petitioner says that he is eligible, being possessed of better qualifications than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement, but denied interview, and, therefore, opportunity to canvass his candidature finally for selection. Aggrieved, he has instituted the present writ petition for the reliefs claimed. 6. A notice of motion was issued on 17.12.2015. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of both the respondents on 16.02.2016, to which the petitioner filed a rejoinder on 20.05.2016. On 02.11.2023, when the petition came up before the Court, the parties having exchanged affidavits, it was admitted to hearing, which proceeded forthwith. It was adjourned to the following day i.e. 03.11.2023. On the said day, Mr. Avneesh Tripathi, learned Advocate was appointed Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the matter. The matter was next heard on 07.12.2023 and adjourned for further hearing to 08.12.2023. On 08.12.2023, hearing was concluded and judgment reserved. 7. Heard Mr. Virendra Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Avneesh Tripathi, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 8. The question involved in this petition is if the degree in Engineering is to be regarded as a higher qualification to the Diploma advertised by the Service Commission, an essential qualification for selection and appointment as Junior Engineer (Trainee) with the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited. 9. Abhishek Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 8. The question involved in this petition is if the degree in Engineering is to be regarded as a higher qualification to the Diploma advertised by the Service Commission, an essential qualification for selection and appointment as Junior Engineer (Trainee) with the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited. 9. This Court must at once say that we have not been referred to any statutory rules on the subject, prescribing qualifications for the post of a Junior Engineer (Trainee) in the establishment of the Power Corporation. What, therefore, has to be fallen back upon as the prescription for eligibility are the terms of the advertisement. The advertisement in question has been quoted in extenso. It shows that the essential qualifications advertised are a Three year Diploma Examination in Electrical Engineering/Civil Engineering awarded by the Pravidhik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh or a Diploma, equivalent thereto, recognized by the State Government, or a Three year All India Diploma Examination in Electrical Engineering/ Civil Engineering, conducted by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Govt. of India, or a Diploma Examination in Electrical Engineering/Civil Engineering conducted by any of the Universities in India incorporated by an Act of the Central/ State legislature. Paragraph No.4(B) of the Advertisement, which mentions these essential qualifications, starts with the proscription that “a candidate must have passed”, the above referred Diplomas from one or the other institutions in the three set of alternatives. The qualification of a Diploma in Electrical or Civil Engineering is not mentioned in that advertisement as the minimum qualification. Rather, paragraph No.4 itself speaks about essential qualification, of which paragraph No. 4(B) is a part. If the advertisement had mentioned the stipulated alternatives of a Diploma in Civil or Electrical Engineering as the minimum qualification, it would have predicated a higher qualification as well. The employment of the word 'minimum' to qualify ‘qualification’ introduces an idea of comparison or gradation. The word 'minimum' postulates higher and still higher. The word 'essential' excludes comparison of degree, called anything else; higher or lower. The advertisement here, as already remarked, makes the Diploma in Civil or Electrical Engineering essential qualification to maintain one's candidature. 10. To this Court's understanding, therefore, there is no place in the scheme of the advertisement to judge if any other qualification possessed by a candidate is higher than the one prescribed. The advertisement here, as already remarked, makes the Diploma in Civil or Electrical Engineering essential qualification to maintain one's candidature. 10. To this Court's understanding, therefore, there is no place in the scheme of the advertisement to judge if any other qualification possessed by a candidate is higher than the one prescribed. This question fell for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Deepak Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2019 (7) ADJ 453 (FB). In Deepak Singh (supra), the Full Bench had before their Lordships, the following questions referred for consideration by a learned Single Judge: “A. Whether a Degree in the field in question is entitled to be viewed as a higher qualification when compared to a Diploma in that field? B. Whether the decisions in Alok Kumar Mishra and Kartikey lay down the correct position in law when they hold that a Degree holder is excluded from the zone of consideration for appointment as a Junior Engineer? C. Whether a degree holder can be held to be ineligible to participate in a selection process for Junior Engineer in light of the relevant statutory rules? D. Whether the exclusion of degree holders from the zone of consideration would meet the tests as propounded by the Supreme Court in State of Uttarakhand v. Deep Chandra Tewari?” 11. Question Nos. A and B were answered together by their Lordships after considering a wealth of authority bearing on the issue. It was held by the Full Bench in Deepak Singh thus: “14. In view of the submissions made at the bar and the Judgments relied upon, the first two questions being Question Nos. A & B in referring order dated 29.11.2018 and the question referred in WRIT - A No. 671 of 2009 are being taken up together and a decision is to be recorded as to whether a degree in the field in question will be viewed as a higher qualification when compared to that diploma in that field. 15. A diploma in engineering essentially is designed to impart practical aspect of the engineering and the mere perusal of the syllabus reveals that the Diploma in Engineering is aimed to equip the candidates, who can cater to the practical requirement of engineering with emphasis on the practical works. 15. A diploma in engineering essentially is designed to impart practical aspect of the engineering and the mere perusal of the syllabus reveals that the Diploma in Engineering is aimed to equip the candidates, who can cater to the practical requirement of engineering with emphasis on the practical works. In short, it aims to train persons for execution of the works and handling of equipments, etc. whereas the graduates in Engineering are taught with syllabus which provides theoretical training in the field of Engineering with low emphasis on the practical part of the engineering. 16. In India, Diploma Course in Engineering, is offered to the students and is a short duration course with the focus on training a person in a particular field. The curriculum includes basic theoretical knowledge and extensive practical knowledge and the diploma can be conferred by various institutes who may or may not be affiliated to the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to 'UGC') or All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to 'AICTE'). The same can be offered even to students after passing their Class-X Examination, in contrast, the Bachelor in Technical Education is offered to students after their completion of Class-XII Examination. A 'degree' can be granted only by the Institutes affiliated to UGC or AICTE. The duration of the course is longer (at present 4 years) and the emphasis in the curriculum is on academics. Thus, in India, focus and the aim of the two streams of education is entirely different with stress on extensive practical knowledge in the case of diploma holders and major emphasis on academic in the case of degree holders. Thus, the Diploma in Engineering and Degree in Engineering cater to different situations and, in view thereof, a degree in the field, in question, cannot be viewed as a higher qualification when compared to a diploma in that field. 17. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, in his usual eloquence, has taken us through the various Judgments, he has relied upon in State of Haryana v. Abdul Gaffar Khan, 2006 (11) SCC 153 wherein the Apex Court was confronted with the selection to the post of Unani Dispenser wherein the educational qualification prescribed was: (i) Unani Dispenser from any recognised University/Institution or Board or Faculty of Indian System of Medicine established by law in India or Up-Vaidya having the knowledge of Urdu: (ii) Matric or its equivalent. (iii) Knowledge of Hindi and English upto Matric standard. 18. The respondents, in the said matter, possessed a qualification of Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery from Kanpur University and were denied appointment for the reasons that they did not possess the qualification of Dispenser of Unani Medicine or Up-Vaidya from a recognised university. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with submissions recorded as under: ''We have perused the order passed by the High Court. As rightly pointed by the High Court and as per Haryana Ayurvedic/Homeopathic and Unani Technical Group (C) Service Rules, 1997, they do not expressly exclude the degree in Unani Medicine and Surgery for the post of Unani Dispenser. Admittedly, the respective contesting respondents in these appeals possess required qualifications from a recognized University/ Institution or Board and are thus, in our opinion, eligible for appointment to the posts of Unani Dispenser. A close scrutiny of the advertisement issued does not anywhere stipulate the diploma as the required qualification. We, therefore, affirm the order passed by the High Court and direct the appellant-State of Haryana to appoint the respective respondents to the posts of Unani Dispenser within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order from this Court or on production of the same by the respective respondents herein whichever is earlier. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.'' 19. We are afraid that the said Judgment has no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the present case the specified required qualification was ''Diploma in Engineering'' and Degree Holders were specifically excluded. 23. The appellants, before the Supreme Court, were holders of B.Tech. degree in Electrical Engineering or Bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering were non-suited by the Commission. 23. The appellants, before the Supreme Court, were holders of B.Tech. degree in Electrical Engineering or Bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering were non-suited by the Commission. The Apex Court relied upon Rule 10 (a)(ii) which was as under: ''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.'' On the basis of the said Rule 10 (a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, the Apex Court held as under: ''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.'' The Court also noted that there was no exclusion to candidates to possess a higher qualification. 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.'' The Court also noted that there was no exclusion to candidates to possess a higher qualification. The above referred decision in Jyoti K.K. (supra) turned on the provisions of Rule 10 (a)(ii). In the present case, there is no equivalent Rule akin to Rule 10(a)(ii). A perusal of the said Rule 10(a)(ii) clearly presupposes and provides that the acquisition of a higher qualification would presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In the present case, there being no such Rule, we are afraid that the presumption is not available to the petitioners. 24. The next case relied upon by Sri Ashok Khare in Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others, 2016(1) ESC 54 (SC). In the said case, the matter related to appointment to the post of J & K Forest Service Range Officers, Grade-I, wherein the prescribed qualification was B.Sc. (Forestry) or its equivalent from any University recognised by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (hereinafter referred to as the 'ICAR'). The appellants, in the said case, had a qualification of B.Sc. with Forestry as one of the major subjects and Master in Forestry i.e. M.Sc. (Forestry) on the date when he applied for the post in question, the Apex Court allowed the appeal holding as under: ''In our considered view, firstly, if there was any ambiguity or vagueness noticed in prescribing the qualification in the advertisement, then it should have been clarified by the authority concerned in the advertisement itself. Secondly, if it was not clarified, then benefit should have been given to the candidate rather than to the respondents. Thirdly, even assuming that there was no ambiguity or/and any vagueness yet we find that the appellant was admittedly having B.Sc. degree with Forestry as one of the major subjects in his graduation and further he was also having Masters degree in Forestry, i.e., M.Sc. (Forestry). Thirdly, even assuming that there was no ambiguity or/and any vagueness yet we find that the appellant was admittedly having B.Sc. degree with Forestry as one of the major subjects in his graduation and further he was also having Masters degree in Forestry, i.e., M.Sc. (Forestry). In the light of these facts, we are of the view that the appellant was possessed of the prescribed qualification to apply for the post in question and his application could not have been rejected treating him to be an ineligible candidate for not possessing prescribed qualification. In our view, if a candidate has done B.Sc. in Forestry as one of the major subjects and has also done Masters in the Forestry, i.e., M.Sc. (Forestry) then in the absence of any clarification on such issue, the candidate possessing such higher qualification has to be held to possess the required qualification to apply for the post. In fact, acquiring higher qualification in the prescribed subject i.e. Forestry was sufficient to hold that the appellant had possessed the prescribed qualification. It was coupled with the fact that Forestry was one of the appellant's major subjects in graduation, due to which he was able to do his Masters in Forestry.'' The said case has no applicability to the facts of the present case inasmuch as Diploma in Engineering and B.Tech in Engineering are two different courses and thus the ratio of the Judgment in the case of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and others has no applicability to the facts of the present case. 25. Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel, has next relied upon a Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011 (1) 115 (P&H) (FB). In the said case, the advertisement for appointment to the post of the Physical Training Instructor, the minimum qualification prescribed was C.P.Ed. whereas the candidates possessing B.P.Ed or M.P.Ed. were rejected. The Punjab and Haryana Full Bench held as under: ''From the facts on record and dictum of above noticed Judgments, it emerges that the candidate possessing higher qualification in the same line cannot be excluded from consideration for selection. It is a different matter that he/she may not be entitled to any additional weightage for higher qualification, but cannot be denied consideration at par with a candidate possessing minimum prescribed qualification. It is a different matter that he/she may not be entitled to any additional weightage for higher qualification, but cannot be denied consideration at par with a candidate possessing minimum prescribed qualification. Denying consideration to a candidate having better and higher qualification in the same line and discipline would definitely result in breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.'' Thus, higher qualification in same line is the guiding factor. In the present case, we have already held that Diploma in Engineering is not in same line as Graduate in Engineering 26. The next case relied upon by Sri Khare is the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others, (2019) 2 SCC 404 . The Apex Court was confronted with the question regarding the appointment to the post of Technician III wherein the qualification prescribed was Matriculation with ITI in Electrical Trade whereas the persons non-suited were Diploma Holders in Electrical Engineering/Electronics & Communication. The Apex Court, after discussing the various Judgments including the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti K.K. (supra), held as under: ''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 KK 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 KK turned. Ms Wadia sought to draw sustenance from the fact that the holder of an ITI certification can obtain lateral entry to the diploma course. It was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti KK turned. Ms Wadia sought to draw sustenance from the fact that the holder of an ITI certification can obtain lateral entry to the diploma course. The point of the matter, however, is that none of the appellants fit the description of candidates who had secured an ITI certification before seeking a lateral entry to a diploma course. Plainly, when an ITI with matric is required, a person who does not hold that qualification is not eligible. The submission based on Note 12, urged by Ms Wadia, cannot be accepted. The stipulation that the qualification prescribed is the bare minimum requirement of the job emphasises that it is an essential requirement, a threshold which cannot be dispensed with. Under Note 12, the Board is entitled to assign additional weightage for a higher qualification. Whether such a weightage should be assigned is a matter for the Board to determine. The SSSB did not assign an additional weightage for a higher qualification. In not exercising an enabling power, no fault can be found with the SSSB. An enabling provision postulates a discretion which may or may not be exercised. A candidate has no vested right to assert that the Board must as a mandate assign an additional weightage to a higher qualification. Whether to do so or not is a matter for the Board to determine. All that Note 12 postulates is that the mere possession of the prescribed qualification will not entitle a candidate to be called for the written test or interview. The Board may shortlist among eligible candidates by granting a weightage to a higher qualification in the relevant line or discipline. But the words ''as may be decided by the Board'' in Note 12 indicate that the Board is vested with a discretion in pursuance of an enabling power which it may or may not exercise.'' 34. The Board may shortlist among eligible candidates by granting a weightage to a higher qualification in the relevant line or discipline. But the words ''as may be decided by the Board'' in Note 12 indicate that the Board is vested with a discretion in pursuance of an enabling power which it may or may not exercise.'' 34. Thus, our answer to the first two questions, is clear that a degree in the field in question, cannot be viewed as a higher qualification compared to Diploma in that field and that the Judgment in the case of Alok Kumar Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Kartikey v. State of Uttar Pradesh lay down the correct position in law while holding that a degree holder is excluded from the zone of consideration for appointment of a Junior Engineer.” 12. The Full Bench further on observed: “36. In the case in hand, the only qualification prescribed was ''Diploma in Engineering'' and it was not the minimum qualification, in fact, the State, as an employer, specifically excluded ''Graduate in Engineering''. This aspect of the matter has been duly adverted to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others wherein the Apex Court held as under: 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. 28. 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. 28. Ms Wadia sought to draw sustenance from the fact that the holder of an ITI certification can obtain lateral entry to the diploma course. The point of the matter, however, is that none of the appellants fit the description of candidates who had secured an ITI certification before seeking a lateral entry to a diploma course. Plainly, when an ITI with Matric is required, a person who does not hold that qualification is not eligible. 29. The submission based on Note 12, urged by Ms Wadia, cannot be accepted. The stipulation that the qualification prescribed is the bare minimum requirement of the job emphasises that it is an essential requirement, a threshold which cannot be dispensed with. Under Note 12, the Board is entitled to assign additional weightage for a higher qualification. Whether such a weightage should be assigned is a matter for the Board to determine. The SSSB did not assign an additional weightage for a higher qualification. In not exercising an enabling power, no fault can be found with the SSSB. An enabling provision postulates a discretion which may or may not be exercised. A candidate has no vested right to assert that the Board must as a mandate assign an additional weightage to a higher qualification. Whether to do so or not is a matter for the Board to determine. All that Note 12 postulates is that the mere possession of the prescribed qualification will not entitle a candidate to be called for the written test or interview. The Board may shortlist among eligible candidates by granting a weightage to a higher qualification in the relevant line or discipline. But the words ''as may be decided by the Board'' in Note 12 indicate that the Board is vested with a discretion in pursuance of an enabling power which it may or may not exercise.'' In subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4597 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos(s). But the words ''as may be decided by the Board'' in Note 12 indicate that the Board is vested with a discretion in pursuance of an enabling power which it may or may not exercise.'' In subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4597 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos(s). 8494 of 2018) (The Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others) held as under : ''The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The Court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.'' 37. In view of the above referred Judgments, we have no hesitation in holding that the State, as an employer, is well equipped to decide the desirable qualification or may prescribe additional qualification including any grant of preference. The Court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility much less, it can go into the question of desirable qualification being at par with the essential qualification. 38. Now, coming to the third question i.e. Question No. (C) that is whether the degree holder can be held to be ineligible to participate in a selection process for Junior Engineer in the light of the relevant statutory Rules. 39. 38. Now, coming to the third question i.e. Question No. (C) that is whether the degree holder can be held to be ineligible to participate in a selection process for Junior Engineer in the light of the relevant statutory Rules. 39. Sri Khare, in support of his submissions made earlier, has contended that in some of the statutory Rules, Diploma in Engineering is specified as the minimum qualification while with regard to some of the Departments, Diploma in Engineering is specified as required qualification. Be that as it may we have already held that Diploma in Engineering being distinct from Graduate in Engineering, no benefit flows from the advertisement whether the Diploma in Engineering is prescribed as a 'minimum qualification' or 'required qualification'. 40. Testing the said arguments as raised by Sri Khare although on record no Rules have been placed, however, in view of the finding recorded by us that Diploma in Engineering is not the same as Bachelor in Engineering and also the finding recorded by us that the State is well equipped to prescribe the requisite required qualification keeping in view the requirement of posts for which the advertisements are issued, we hold that whether Diploma in Engineering is specified as a minimum qualification or a required qualification, Graduates in Engineering would not be entitled to be considered and will be out of zone of consideration unless a candidate possess both the qualifications to explain it further suppose a candidate after acquiring Diploma in Engineering also passes Graduation in Engineering he would be eligible, in view of the fact that he has Diploma in Engineering which is the required qualification for applying to the post and cannot be denied to participate only because he has any qualification additional to the prescribed qualification. However, the State Government is free to provide for equivalence as was done by the Kerala State while incorporating Rule 10(a) (ii). Since there is nothing on record in the present case to show that there was any Rule or Directive of the State Government to provide equivalence, it is only logical to conclude that degree holders are ineligible to participate in the selection process for Junior Engineer in the light of the specific provisions incorporated under the advertisement in question.” 13. Since there is nothing on record in the present case to show that there was any Rule or Directive of the State Government to provide equivalence, it is only logical to conclude that degree holders are ineligible to participate in the selection process for Junior Engineer in the light of the specific provisions incorporated under the advertisement in question.” 13. Their Lordships of the Full Bench answered the questions on six counts, in the following words: “Thus, our answers to the questions posed before the Full Bench are as under: (1) A Diploma in Engineering and Degree in Engineering are two distinct qualifications and a degree in the field in question cannot be viewed as a higher qualification when compared to Diploma in that field. (2) The decision in the case of Alok Kumar Mishra (supra) and Kartikey (supra) laid down the correct position in law holding that the degree holder is excluded from the zone of consideration for appointment as a Junior Engineer with regard to the Diploma in question. (3) The degree holder is held to be ineligible to participate in the selection process of Junior Engineer in the light of the Advertisement issued. (4) The exclusion of the degree holders from the zone of consideration is in consonance with the tests propounded by the Supreme Court in case of State of Uttarakhand and others v. Deep Chandra Tewari and another. (5) The State Government, while prescribing the essential qualifications or desirable qualifications are best suited to decide the requirements for selecting a candidate for nature of work required by the State Government and the Courts are precluded from laying down the conditions of eligibility. If the language in the Rules is clear judicial review cannot be used to decide what is best suited for the employer. (6) The 'O' level Diploma granted by NIELIT is not equivalent to Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application and there is no presumption available to hold that the PGDCA possess the necessary qualification as prescribed for 'O' level Diploma accorded by NIELIT.” 14. The holding of the Full Bench leaves no manner of doubt that given the terms of the advertisement here, which we have held to be exclusive about the stipulated qualification and not one that speaks about a minimum or a range of graded qualifications, the holder of a degree in Engineering would not be eligible. 15. Mr. The holding of the Full Bench leaves no manner of doubt that given the terms of the advertisement here, which we have held to be exclusive about the stipulated qualification and not one that speaks about a minimum or a range of graded qualifications, the holder of a degree in Engineering would not be eligible. 15. Mr. Avneesh Tripathi, learned Amicus Curiae at this stage brought to this Court's notice, the holding of the Supreme Court in Puneet Sharma and others v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and another, (2021) 16 SCC 340 to submit that the law laid down by the Full Bench may no longer hold good. The question that was considered by their Lordships in Puneet Sharma (supra) arose in the backdrop of facts, which can best be understood in the words of their Lordships as carried in the opening part of the report. It reads: “2. Whether a degree in Electrical Engineering/Electrical and Electronics Engineering is technically a higher qualification than a diploma in that discipline and, whether degree-holders are eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) under the relevant recruitment rules, is the issue that falls for decision in these appeals arising out of a common judgment [Robin Kumar v. State of H.P., 2020 SCC OnLine HP 3397] of the Himachal Pradesh High Court [ In CWP No. 138 of 2020, CWPOA No. 3601 of 2019 and CWPOA No. 3633 of 2019 filed by the degree-holders (hereafter “degree-holders”) claiming the right of consideration, and CWPOA No. 6534 of 2019 and CWPOA No. 6252 of 2020 have been filed by the diploma-holders (“diploma-holder”) opposing the claim of the degree-holders.] . As is evident, this issue is not novel and has an almost endemic tendency requiring judicial attention, albeit in myriad and diverse contexts. 3. The Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission (“HPSSC” hereafter), acting on the requisition sent by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. (“HPSEB” hereafter) advertised 222 posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical hereafter referred to as “JE”) on 27- 6-2018. Degree-holders in the discipline applied for the post concerned; after qualifying the written examination, they were called for verification of documents but the final result was not declared. They approached the High Court in writ proceedings, claiming that since they possessed educational qualifications that were higher than the prescribed minimum (and advertised) qualifications, they could not be denied consideration. Degree-holders in the discipline applied for the post concerned; after qualifying the written examination, they were called for verification of documents but the final result was not declared. They approached the High Court in writ proceedings, claiming that since they possessed educational qualifications that were higher than the prescribed minimum (and advertised) qualifications, they could not be denied consideration. The diploma-holders opposed this claim, and argued that the qualifications possessed by degree-holders was neither higher nor can be considered in teeth of the recruitment rules as also on the basis of the advertisement issued by the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission. 4. The HPSEB adopted a neutral position; however, it highlighted that per the applicable regulations, the minimum essential qualification provided for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Elect.) was “matriculation with Diploma in Electrical/Electronics/Electronics and Communication/Computer Science from the recognised Institution/Board/University duly recognised by the Central or State Government”. HPSEB further stated that the HPSSC could not traverse beyond the regulations, and was bound to make recruitments in accordance with them. The HPSSC, which issued the advertisement and conducted the selection, opposed the petitions and asserted that degree-holders could not be considered for recruitment.” 16. It was observed in Puneet Sharma: “31. In the present case, what is evident from the rules is that direct recruitment to the post of JEs in HPSEB is to the extent of 72%. Undoubtedly, eligibility is amongst those who passed in matriculation or 10+2 or its equivalent qualification. However, this Court is of the opinion that the diploma-holders' contention that the minimum qualification is matriculation and that the technical qualification is diploma is incorrect. The minimum qualification for the post cannot be deemed to be only matriculation but rather that only such of those matriculates, or 10+2 pass students, who are diploma-holders would be eligible. The term “with” in this category has to be read as conjunctive. 32. As far as the merits of the main question i.e. whether the degree-holders too can apply for the post of JEs, a close examination of the rules shows that a lion's share of the posts at the JE level is set apart for direct recruitment. However, when it is at the level of the higher post i.e. Assistant Engineer which is a promotional post direct recruitment is only to the extent of 36%. However, when it is at the level of the higher post i.e. Assistant Engineer which is a promotional post direct recruitment is only to the extent of 36%. Of the balance 64%, various sub-quotas have been stipulated for feeder cadres; the largest percentage being for Junior Engineers. For a long time, even on the date of the advertisement, two distinct quotas (of 5%) had been set apart for promotion of Junior Engineers holding degree qualifications in the subject concerned. 33. This Court is conscious that the issue in question is whether the minimum qualification of a diploma in electrical or electronic engineering or other prescribed qualifications includes a degree in that discipline. However, the rules have to be considered as a whole. So viewed, the two sub-quotas are: (1) 5% enabling those diploma-holders who acquire degree qualifications during service as Junior Engineers; and (2) 5% enabling among those who hold degrees before joining as Junior Engineers. 34. The latter (2) conclusively establishes that what the rule-making authority undoubtedly had in mind was that degree-holders too could compete for the position of JEs as individuals holding equivalent or higher qualifications. If such interpretation were not given, there would be no meaning in the 5% sub-quota set apart for those who were degree-holders before joining as Junior Engineers — in terms of the recruitment rules as existing. 35. The Court's opinion is fortified by the latest amendment brought about on 3-6-2020. This clarifies beyond doubt that even for the post of Junior Engineers, those individuals holding higher qualifications are eligible to compete. In the opinion of this Court, though the amending rules were brought into force prospectively, nevertheless, being clarificatory, they apply to the recruitment that is the subject-matter of the present controversy. Such a position (i.e. clarificatory amendments operative retroactively, despite their enforcement prospectively) has been held in several previous judgments of this Court. In Zile Singh v. State of Haryana [Zile Singh v. State of Haryana, (2004) 8 SCC 1 ] this Court examined the various authorities on statutory interpretation and concluded : (SCC pp. 8-9, paras 13-14) “13. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation. 8-9, paras 13-14) “13. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation. But the rule in general is applicable where the object of the statute is to affect vested rights or to impose new burdens or to impair existing obligations. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only—‘nova constitution futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis’—a new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past. (See Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 9th Edn., 2004 at p. 438.) It is not necessary that an express provision be made to make a statute retrospective and the presumption against retrospectivity may be rebutted by necessary implication especially in a case where the new law is made to cure an acknowledged evil for the benefit of the community as a whole (ibid., p. 440). 14. The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes…. In determining, therefore, the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form. If a new Act is “to explain” an earlier Act, it would be without object unless construed retrospectively. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act. It is well-settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law retrospective operation is generally intended…. An amending Act may be purely declaratory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect (ibid., pp. 468-69).” 39. The considerations which weighed with this Court in the previous decisions i.e. P.M. Latha [P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala, (2003) 3 SCC 541 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 339] , Yogesh Kumar [Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 3 SCC 548 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 346], Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 329] were quite different from the facts of this case. This Court's conclusions that the prescription of a specific qualification, excluding what is generally regarded as a higher qualification can apply to certain categories of posts. Thus, in Latha [P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala, (2003) 3 SCC 541 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 339] and Yogesh Kumar [Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 3 SCC 548 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 346] as well as Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 329] those possessing degrees or post-graduation or BEd degrees, were not considered eligible for the post of primary or junior teacher. In a similar manner, for “Technician III” or lower post, the equivalent qualification for the post of Junior Engineer i.e. diploma-holders were deemed to have been excluded, in Zahoor Ahmad Rather [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 353] . This Court is cognizant of the fact that in Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 329] as well as Zahoor [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 353] the stipulation in Jyoti [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] which enabled consideration of candidates with higher qualifications was deemed to be a distinguishing ground. No such stipulation exists in the HPSEB Rules. Yet, of material significance is the fact that the higher post of Assistant Engineer (next in hierarchy to Junior Engineer) has nearly 2/3rds (64%) promotional quota. Amongst these individuals, those who held degrees before appointment as Junior Engineers are entitled for consideration in a separate and distinct sub- quota, provided they function as a Junior Engineer continuously for a prescribed period. This salient aspect cannot be overlooked; it only shows the intent of the rule-makers not to exclude the degree-holders from consideration for the lower post of Junior Engineers.” 17. The decision of their Lordships in Puneet Sharma, like some others referred to in paragraph No.13 of the report, has to be understood for the principle it lays down. This salient aspect cannot be overlooked; it only shows the intent of the rule-makers not to exclude the degree-holders from consideration for the lower post of Junior Engineers.” 17. The decision of their Lordships in Puneet Sharma, like some others referred to in paragraph No.13 of the report, has to be understood for the principle it lays down. It turns on the terms of the rules involved in Puneet Sharma, and that particular rule is about 64% of the posts of Assistant Engineers being filled by promotion from amongst Junior Engineers, where there was a quota of 5% for Junior Engineers, who already had a degree in Engineering before they entered service. It is on this particular feature in the rules that the holding in Puneet Sharma turns, as would be evident from paragraph No.34 of the report; and of course, the concluding remarks in paragraph No.39 of the report. 18. In the present case, hardly any rule has been brought to the notice of this Court, that may lend itself to a particular construction, where the holder of a degree in Engineering may be held eligible to apply to the post of a Junior Engineer. To the contrary, terms of the advertisement make the qualification of a Diploma in Electrical/Civil Engineering, essential to maintain one's candidature for the post. About all the argument based on inherent superiority of a degree in Engineering, the answer of the Full Bench to the issue clinches it. 19. In our considered opinion, therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition. 20. Before parting with the matter, this Court must place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Avneesh Tripathi, learned Amicus Curiae. 21. In the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. 22. There shall be no order as to costs.