JUDGMENT : Moksha, J. “It would be idle to expect every statutory provision to be drafted with divine prescience and perfect clarity.” Lord Denning 1. The Rule needs to be interpreted with its legal language and understanding of the intention of the Rule making authority. There can be many ambiguities, uncertainties, incompleteness in the words and Rule may reflect several meanings but it’s the responsibility of the Rule making authority to avoid such ambiguities and to give a clear and precise meaning, deriving clear attention of the Rule making authority, while exercising its power in decision-making process. 2. Petitioners are challenging and seeking quashment of the judgment and order dated 30.06.2022, hereinafter referred to as impugned judgment, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Srinagar Bench, hereinafter for short as Tribunal, whereby the OA filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 3. In order to appreciate the issue in its right perspective, a brief look at the events, as they happened, is desired, thus: BRIEF MATRIX 4. An advertisement notification bearing No. 05 of 2020 dated 24th October, 2020, for filling up 34 posts of Draftsman (Civil), PWD (R&B) UT Cadre, was responded to besides others, by the petitioners offering their candidature for the post. In terms of the eligibility criterion, the candidate had to possess 2 years Draftsman Training Course Certificate/ Diploma in Civil Engineering from Govt. recognized Institute. The said advertisement was followed by a corrigendum dated 11.01.2021 whereby the eligibility criterion was modified and the word ‘Civil’ appearing in the earlier eligibility criteria was removed. The eligibility thus prescribed for the posts in question was modified as: “2 years Draftsman training course certificate/diploma from any govt. recognized institute.” 5. It is stated in the writ petition that the respondents issued the result of the Computer Based Test (CBT) vide notification dated 20.12.2021, wherein the petitioners were shown to have respectively scored the points i) 96.948682386; ii) 97.461212976; iii) 97.531734838; iv) 99.930651872; v) 95.204513399; vi) 96.324549237; vii) 98.377997179; viii) 95.214979196; ix) 76.516220028; x) 99.435825106; xi) 89.181692094; xii) 97.919556172 and xiii) 99.167822469. Subsequent thereto the candidates figuring in the result notification were called for document verification in terms of notification dated 08.01.2022. As the petitioners had applied and participated in the selection process against more than one advertised post, therefore, the petitioners were asked to indicate their preferential choice of post. 6. Subsequent thereto the candidates figuring in the result notification were called for document verification in terms of notification dated 08.01.2022. As the petitioners had applied and participated in the selection process against more than one advertised post, therefore, the petitioners were asked to indicate their preferential choice of post. 6. Subsequently, a provisional select list came to be issued by the respondents for the post of Draftsman (Civil), PW(R&B) UT cadre in terms of notification No. SSB/Secy/Sel/2022/1623-32 dated 23.02.2022 and Draftsman (Civil) Jal Shakti Kashmir Division and Jammu Division in terms of Notification No. SSB/Secy/Sel/2022/1635-44 dated 23.02.2022 to the exclusion of petitioners. 7. Aggrieved of their exclusion, the petitioners filed representations against the provisional select list seeking redrawing of the same. The said representations, however, came to be rejected by the respondents by an order dated 10.03.2022. 8. Feeling aggrieved of their non-selection and the rejection of their representations, the petitioners filed the OA No. 226/2022 before the Tribunal titled Wasim Shafi v. Public Works Department (R&B) and the Tribunal upon consideration of the matter directed the respondents not to operate the selection list issued on 19.03.2022 till next date of hearing vide order dated 30.03.2022. Similar relief was passed in another OA No. 483/2022 titled Risheb Sharma v. Public Works Department (R&B) in terms of order dated 19.05.2022. 9. The Tribunal, however, after hearing both the parties and considering the material placed before it, dismissed the OA No. 226/2022 in terms of the impugned judgment. Relevant portion of the order is taken note of below: “5. In view of the above discussion, we find that the qualification prescribed for recruitment to the post of Draftsman (Civil) has been correctly mentioned in the corrigendum dated 11.1.2021 and the same is based upon the Rules prescribed under SRO 180 of 1997 dated 26.5.1997. The applicants who are in possession of Diploma in Civil Engineering are not eligible to be considered for the post of Draftsman (Civil).” 10. The applicants who are in possession of Diploma in Civil Engineering are not eligible to be considered for the post of Draftsman (Civil).” 10. Feeling aggrieved of the dismissal of O.A by the Tribunal, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners inter alia on the grounds that; i) No reasoning is assigned by the Tribunal for dismissing the OA; ii) The impugned judgment is contrary to the Recruitment Rules of 1997, advertisement, corrigendum as also the stand taken by the J&KSSB iii) The Tribunal did not consider the plea of the petitioners that in terms of the Recruitment Rules, 10% quota is reserved for promotion of draftsmen with three years diploma from Govt. recognized Institute which is possible to be followed only in case the candidates with three years diploma in Engineering are appointed as draftsmen by way of direct recruitment; iv) The Tribunal failed to return any finding in respect of the plea of petitioners that already candidates with three years diploma in Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering are serving as draftsmen (Civil) and (Mechanical) respectively; v) The Tribunal did not consider that the communication dated 04.06.2012, issued by the Public Works Department is in conflict with the Recruitment Rules and has already been held to be unreliable by this Court in case titled Tariq Ahmad Rather and others v. State of J&K and others bearing SWP no. 1213/2012. 11. This Court, in terms of order dated 12.08.2022, while granting time to the respondents for filing their reply directed that if any appointments as per the select list prepared has been made or are proposed to be made, that may be subject to the decision of the writ petition and any appointment hereinafter issued shall specifically state that the matter is subjudice before the High Court and that the appointment is subject to the outcome of the litigation. Paragraph no. 8 of the order, for facility, is reproduced as under: “8. In the meantime, if any, appointments as per the select list prepared has been made or are proposed to be made, that may be subject to the decision of the writ petition and it is provided that any appointment hereinafter issued shall specifically state that the matter is subjudice before the High Court and that the appointment is subject to the outcome of the litigation.” 12. In terms of order dated 02.03.2023, Mr Abdul Rashid Malik, Sr. AAG, has adopted the reply filed before the Tribunal in opposition to OA as counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 3. Counter affidavit on behalf of other respondents stand filed. 13. The respondent no. 3, Recruitment Agency in its reply resisted the claim of the petitioners inter alia on the grounds that the petitioners have approached the court at a belated stage after having filed their applications and appeared in the examination conducted for the posts in question; the petitioners ought to have challenged the qualification immediately after the same was prescribed and notified by the recruitment Board; in terms of the eligibility criteria the candidates with two years draftsman training course certificate or diploma in draftsman from any recognized institute and not the diploma in Civil Engineering; taking into account the intention of the indenting department the recruitment board declared the candidates with diploma in Civil Engineering as not eligible; it is not the duration of the diploma but the nature of it that is relevant; it would be erroneous to infer that the word ‘diploma’ in prescribed qualification implies diploma in Civil Engineering or for that matter in any other discipline; the three years diploma in Civil Engineering prescribed for promotional quota can be acquired by the in-service draftsman later on after entering into the Government service as Draftsman as such, it cannot be presumed that by prescribing the quota in promotion to a post of different category the applicants/ petitioners are eligible for the post of draftsman. It is stated that the indenting department in terms of communication No. PW/Hyd/Adm/08/2008 dated 04.06.2012 had clarified that two years Draftsman Training Course Certificate/Diploma from any Government Recognized Institute is the prescribed qualification for the post of Draftsman Civil and two years diploma in Quantity Surveying, three years diploma in Civil Engineering and three years diploma in Architectural Assistantship is not the prescribed qualification for the said posts in terms of the Recruitment Rules issued vide SRO 180 of 1997 dated 26.05.1997. 14. Respondents 4 to 106 have also submitted their objections on the similar lines with an addition that the decision delivered in a case, SWP no. 14. Respondents 4 to 106 have also submitted their objections on the similar lines with an addition that the decision delivered in a case, SWP no. 1213/2012, titled Tariq Ahmad Rather & others v. State of J&K and others, by the Single Bench of this Court was challenged by the Government in LPA and this court upheld the same and in consequence whereof a Committee of five members under the convenorship of Shri Sham Vinod Meena, IAS, was constituted which submitted its report in terms of communication No. 1130/PS/AS/PHE dated 22.01.2014 with the observation that the Diploma in Quantity Surveying is not the same thing as Draftsman (Civil) as was the requirement of the advertisement notice and the SSB accordingly prepared the final selection list Draftsman (Civil) purely on the basis of qualification prescribed therein. Arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties. 15. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr Abhinav Sharma has stated that the selection list issued by respondent No. 3 is in clear violation of the Jammu and Kashmir Engineering Subordinate Service, Recruitment Rules, 1997, herein after to be referred as Rules of 1997. The advertisement issued by the respondent no. 3, clearly provides that the qualification for the post of Draftsman is two years draftsman training course certificate/diploma from any government recognised institution, the petitioners being possessed of three years diploma in Civil Engineering from a government recognised institution i.e. JK Board of Technical Education, were found to be eligible. They were not only permitted to take part in the computer based written test but also were declared successful with high percentile. The petitioners were also directed to submit their order of preference of the post against which they wanted to be selected. The respondent no. 3 excluded the eligibility of the petitioners from the selection process on account of fact that they possessed three years diploma in Civil Engineering which as per the learned senior counsel is in clear violation of the Recruitment Rules of 1997. It is stated that in all earlier selections, the candidates with three years diploma in Civil Engineering were considered eligible, they were selected and consequently appointed and are still serving in the respondent departments. 16. It is further stated that the interpretation attached by Respondent No. 3, to the Recruitment Rules and to the advertisements is contrary. It is stated that in all earlier selections, the candidates with three years diploma in Civil Engineering were considered eligible, they were selected and consequently appointed and are still serving in the respondent departments. 16. It is further stated that the interpretation attached by Respondent No. 3, to the Recruitment Rules and to the advertisements is contrary. Neither the Recruitment Rules of 1997, nor the advertisement provided two years diploma whereas the only requirement of the Recruitment Rules and the advertisement was that of diploma from the recognised institute, diploma in Civil Engineering is of three years and no recognised institute in State of J&K now Union Territory issues, two years diploma in Civil Engineering. Rule 13 of Recruitment Rules of 1997, clearly provides that if any question relating to the interpretation of the Rules arises, the matter shall be referred to the government for its decision, therefore, the respondent no.3, was under an obligation to refer the matter to the government and had no authority to take the decision thereby declaring the petitioners in eligible. 17. It is stated that in the Recruitment Rules of 1997, 10% quota has been fixed for filling up the post of Junior Engineer Grade-II for Draftsman by way of promotion and amongst only those draftsmen who possess three-year diploma or degree from government recognised institute. The specific provision contained for promotion of draftsman with three years diploma to the higher post of Junior Engineer Grade-II indicates that the intention of the Rule makers was clear and more precise that only those candidates were eligible for the post of draftsman, who possess three-year diploma in the relevant branch of Engineering. 18. It is argued that the Polytechnic College and State Board of Technical Education were constituted and created much prior to the Recruitment Rules of 1997. 18. It is argued that the Polytechnic College and State Board of Technical Education were constituted and created much prior to the Recruitment Rules of 1997. The course conducted by Polytechnic College and the diploma granted by the State Board of Technical Education in Civil Engineering is of three years duration, therefore, the Rule makers were alive to the situation that J&K board of technical education grants three years diploma in Civil Engineering that is the reason diploma from recognised institution was provided as one of the qualifications for the post of draftsman and it was also provided that for the higher post of Junior Engineer GradeII and the same Recruitment Rules of 1997, a draftsman with three years diploma in Engineering is entitled for the promotion to the post of Junior Engineer, Grade II. It is further stated that the department of Public Works has maintained three separate seniority list of Draftsman i.e. Draftsman with two-year, Draftsman training course certificate, draftsman with three years diploma in Engineering from government Institute and draftsman with Engineering degree. 19. Learned, senior Counsel has vehemently argued that representations of the petitioners came to be rejected by the respondents by virtue of order dated- 10-03-2022, on the ground that if higher qualified candidates like those possessing three years, diploma in Civil Engineering have to be considered for the post of draftsman, then it would be unjust and unreasonable to exclude candidates having four years degree in Civil Engineering but the respondents did not stick to the reason of rejection stated in the order dated 10-03-2022, and interpreted the Recruitment Rules of 1997, as per their convenience. In para 18 of the reply filed by the Respondent No. 3. it is stated that only those candidates are eligible for the post who are possessing only two years, Draftsman training, course certificate or diploma in draftsman from any recognised institution and not diploma in Civil Engineering. He has stated that merit has been made casualty by the official respondents as they have chosen to select candidates with low merit and the petitioners who have obtained very high merit have not been selected by misinterpreting the Recruitment Rules of 1997. 20. Learned senior counsel has raised allegation against Respondent No. 103 namely Mr Masood Farooq who as per him was selected as draftsman on the basis of three-year diploma which he had passed in the year 2015. 20. Learned senior counsel has raised allegation against Respondent No. 103 namely Mr Masood Farooq who as per him was selected as draftsman on the basis of three-year diploma which he had passed in the year 2015. He has also raised allegation against two more candidates namely Mr Omar Farooq who was appointed as draftsman Civil in the year 2017 and also passed his degree in Civil in the year 2017 and Mr Vipin Parihar who was appointed as draftsman Mechanical in the year 2017, having three years diploma in Mechanical Engineering from J&K State Board of Technical Education. 21. Learned Senior Counsel referred to and relied upon the judgments delivered in cases reported titled Dr Krishan Chandra Sahu v. State of Orissa (SC) reported as (1995) 6 SCC (1 ); Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, (SC), 1978 (1) SCC 405 ; Puneet Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and another, AIR 2021 SC 2221 . 22. Per contra, the learned Counsel for official respondents Mr A. R. Malik, Mr Ilyas Laway and Mr Jahangir Dar, have argued that only those candidates are eligible for the post of draftsman who are possessing only two years draftsman training course certificate or diploma in draftsman from any recognised institute and not diploma in Civil Engineering. 23. It is stated that it was a clear intention of the intending department while communicating modifications through the corrigendum in the qualification for the post of draftsman which meant to exclude those possessing diploma in Civil Engineering. The Board declared those candidates possessing diploma in Civil Engineering not eligible for the post of Draftsman, the tenure of diploma in Civil Engineering is immaterial. What is material is that the candidate must possess either two years draftsman training course certificate or diploma in draftsman and since the petitioners are diploma holders in Civil Engineering as such, they have rightly been excluded from the zone of consideration by the Board for the post of draftsman. It is further stated that some institutions offer two years certificate course in draftsmanship while many other issues, two years diploma course in draftsmanship which is why both certificate and diploma words have been mentioned in the prescribed qualification for the post. It is further stated that some institutions offer two years certificate course in draftsmanship while many other issues, two years diploma course in draftsmanship which is why both certificate and diploma words have been mentioned in the prescribed qualification for the post. The use of only certificate would have created conditions for exclusion of those candidates who would have been in possession of two years diploma course in draftsman. 24. It is stated that the seniority list of draftsman with two-year certificate course/diploma is maintained and upon upgradation of qualification by any candidate, his degree is accepted, and he is placed in the relevant seniority list of degree holders draftsman Civil/diploma holder draftsman Mechanical, as and when same is notified after deleting their names from the seniority list of draftsman. It is also stated that no candidate having three years diploma in Civil Engineering has been selected and subsequently appointed as draftsman by the respondents. 25. Mr Malik, learned Sr AAG, has placed on record the qualification certificates of respondent No. 103 namely Masood Farooq, which reflects that he obtained diploma in draftsman Course during January 2019 to December 2020, conducted by Rashtriya Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, which clearly reflects that his selection is based on the diploma in draftsmanship issued by the competent authority prior to the issuance of the advertisements. 26. Learned counsel for the private respondents Mr Firdous and Mr Suhail have stated that in addition to what has been argued by the official respondents, this court while disposing of SWP No. 1213/2012, dated 02-01-2013, directed the respondents therein to reconsider the clarification given by the Government with respect to the interpretation of the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Draftsman in terms of Recruitment Rules of 1997, in accordance with Rule 13 of the Rules of 1997. The Government was directed to address the question of qualification and then take a decision on firm foundation. The Department filed appeal before this court and this Court in terms of judgment dated, 01-10-2013, upheld the order passed by the Learned Single Bench. Thereafter, the Government constituted a committee of five members and the report was submitted on 22-01-2014, with the observation that diploma in Quantity Surveying is not the same as Draftsman Civil. 27. The Department filed appeal before this court and this Court in terms of judgment dated, 01-10-2013, upheld the order passed by the Learned Single Bench. Thereafter, the Government constituted a committee of five members and the report was submitted on 22-01-2014, with the observation that diploma in Quantity Surveying is not the same as Draftsman Civil. 27. Learned Counsels have tried to justify that the Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioners are not entitled to be selected and appointed against the post of draftsman as they lack the requisite qualification prescribed in the Recruitment Rules of 1997. 28. Learned counsel referred to and relied upon the judgments titled as Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad, (2019) 2 SCC 404 ; Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade, (2019) 6 SCC 362 ; Unnikrishnan CV and others v. Union of India and others,2023 SCC OnLine SC 343; J. Ranga Swamy v. Govt. of A.P., (1990) 1 SCC 288 ; State of Rahasthan v. Lata Arun, (2002) 6 SCC 252 ; Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal, (2009) 1 SCC 610 ; Aijaz Ahmad Ahanger and others v. U.T. of J&K and others 2021 SCC OnLine J&K 904; etc. 29. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and the material on record. 30. In the instant petition the question before us is the intent of Rule making authority and interpretation of the Rules which prescribes the qualification for the post of Draftsman as mentioned in the Jammu and Kashmir Engineering Subordinate Service Recruitment Rules, 1997. Schedule-II “A” (Executive) Jammu and Kashmir Engineering (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1997 Class Category Designation of the post Grade Minimum Qualification for Direct Recruitment Method of recruitment A Head Draftsman 2000-3200 -- 100% by promotion from class III category “B” having two years Draftsman training course certificate/Diploma from Government recognized Institute. Jr Engineer Grade-II Civil/Mechanical/Electrical 1. 1760-3200 2. 1400-2300 3.6700-202- 10100 3 years Diploma in Civil/Electrical and Mechanical Engineering from Govt. recognized Institute/Indian University Degree in Civil/Mech/Electrical Engineering or AMIE Section (A&B) India. Note. Indian University Degree/3 years Diploma from Government Recognized Institute in Aeronautical/Automobile Production Engineering shall be considered as equivalent to Degree Diploma in Mech. Engineering respectively. I. 90% by direct recruitment II. 1760-3200 2. 1400-2300 3.6700-202- 10100 3 years Diploma in Civil/Electrical and Mechanical Engineering from Govt. recognized Institute/Indian University Degree in Civil/Mech/Electrical Engineering or AMIE Section (A&B) India. Note. Indian University Degree/3 years Diploma from Government Recognized Institute in Aeronautical/Automobile Production Engineering shall be considered as equivalent to Degree Diploma in Mech. Engineering respectively. I. 90% by direct recruitment II. 10% by promotion through Department Promotion Committee from Draftsman/Work Supervisor and Shift Attendant/Field Workers/Field Supervisors having obtained Degree/AMIE Section A&B, 3 years Diploma from Indian University/Government recognized Institute in Civil/Mech/Electrical Engineering Disciplines as applicable in the ratio 4:4:2 respectively with at least five years are continuous/experience service in their respective service in their respective categories. In case the required number of eligible persons are not available then the vacancy shall be filled up by direct recruitment. Note 1. Fresh recruitment to the posts of Jr. Engineers shall be made in and after putting in eight years service they will be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1760-3200. Degree holders shall be entitled to eight advance increments on their initial appointment in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300. Note 2. A Junior Engineer Grade-II Diploma holder after acquiring AMIE section (A&B shall be treated as degree holder for the purpose of seniority from the date of completion/passing of AMIE Section (A&B) course. B Senior Draftsman 1760-3200 -- 100% by promotion from Class-IV having two years Draftsman training course certificate/Diploma from Govt. recognized Institute. IV Draftsman 1200-2040 fresh recruitment shall be made in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 and after putting in 8 years service they will be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660 Two years Draftsman Training Course Certificate/Diploma from any Govt. recognized Institute. 100% by direct recruitment. 31. Minimum qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Draftsman is prescribed as two years draftsman training course certificate/diploma from any government recognised Institute. The interpretation must depend on the text and the context. Best interpretation makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. The Rules must be looked at as a whole. It is very important to ascertain the exact meaning of the words which the Rule making authority has used, but it is not permissible to add/read words in a Rule which are not there. 32. Best interpretation makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. The Rules must be looked at as a whole. It is very important to ascertain the exact meaning of the words which the Rule making authority has used, but it is not permissible to add/read words in a Rule which are not there. 32. The Apex Court has, while dealing with a similar issue, in case titled Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc v. B. Vijaya Sai and others reported as (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 1, laid down the guiding principles. It would be profitable to reproduce paragraphs 65 and 66 of the said judgment herein, thus : “65. We find that the High Court has failed to take into consideration two important principles of interpretation. The first one being of textual and contextual interpretation. It will be apposite to refer to the guiding principles, succinctly summed up by Chinnappa Reddy, J., in the judgment of this Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and Others: “33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A Rule is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the Rule must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a Rule is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the Rule maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the Rule is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a Rule and no word of a Rule can be construed in isolation. Rules have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place. No part of a Rule and no word of a Rule can be construed in isolation. Rules have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place. It is by looking at the definition as a whole in the setting of the entire Act and by reference to what preceded the enactment and the reasonsfor it that the Court construed the expression “Prize Chit” in Srinivasa [ (1980) 4 SCC 507 : (1981) 1 SCR 801 : 51 Com Cas 464] and we find no reason to depart from the Court's construction.” 66. It is thus trite law that while interpreting the provisions of a Rule, it is necessary that the textual interpretation should be matched with the contextual one. The Act must be looked at as a whole and it must be discovered what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a Rule and no word of a Rule can be construed in isolation. Rules have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place….” 33. The Tribunal in terms of the impugned order has relied upon the stand taken by the respondents, thereby segregating the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of draftsman as under- “Two years draftsman training course certificate from any government recognised institute. Or Two years draftsman training course diploma from any government recognised Institute”. 34. It has been held that only certificate and diploma of two years in draftsmanship are acceptable and no other diploma in any other discipline can be accepted for the said post. The Tribunal has also relied upon the letters dated 22-03-2012 and 04-06-2012, which had categorically clarified that diploma in Civil Engineering, is not the prescribed qualification for the post of draftsman as per the Recruitment Rules issued vide SRO 180 of 1997 dated 26-05-1997. The Tribunal has also relied upon the letters dated 22-03-2012 and 04-06-2012, which had categorically clarified that diploma in Civil Engineering, is not the prescribed qualification for the post of draftsman as per the Recruitment Rules issued vide SRO 180 of 1997 dated 26-05-1997. In terms of Service Selection Board letter No. SSB/SECY/839, dated 22-03-2012 clarification was sought with respect to the qualification of Draftsman (Civil) and vide communication No. PW/HYd/Adm/08/2008 dated, 04-06-2012, the then Under Secretary to Government, PHE/and FC department, had conveyed to the secretary to J&K Services Selection Board, Srinagar, that the two years Draftsman training course certificate/diploma from any recognised institute is the prescribed qualification for the post of Draftsman (Civil), two years diploma in Quantity Surveying, three years diploma in Civil Engineering and three years diploma in Architectural Assistantship are not the prescribed qualifications as per Service Recruitment Rules, notified vide SRO 180 of 1997 dated 26-05-1997. 35. The communication supra was challenged in SWP number 1213/2012, in case titled as Tariq Ahmed Rather and others versus state and others. It was held in terms of judgement dated 02-01-2013 as under-; “19. In the afore-stated circumstances, in order to avoid any protraction in the selection and to avoid protracted litigative process in-keeping with the cannons of justice, it shall be in the larger interests of justice, at this stage, to direct respondents No.1 to 3 to re-consider the clarification which has been issued vide letter dated 4th June, 2012 and for issuing fresh clarification, consider the report as submitted by SBOTE in terms of letter dated 7th June, 2012 and obtain further assistance from the experts on the field before interpreting the Rule vis-à-vis qualification, as permissible in accordance with Rule 13 of the Rules of 1997. 20. This petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents No.1 to 3 that they shall re-consider the clarification and in accordance with Rule 13 of the Rules of 1997, address the question of qualification and then take a decision on a firm foundation, as shall be supplied by the experts on the field. Then the clarification vis-à-vis educational qualification as prescribed, shall be issued and send to the SSB and SSB shall take into consideration that clarification and dependent on that, process of selection shall be open to be finalized. Then the clarification vis-à-vis educational qualification as prescribed, shall be issued and send to the SSB and SSB shall take into consideration that clarification and dependent on that, process of selection shall be open to be finalized. The provisional selection list shall await the results from the respondent Commissioner/ Secretary PHE and I&FC Department”. 36. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the respondents by way of an appeal and this court dismissed the appeal on 01-10-2013 with the following observations. “The respondent No. 2 constituted a committee in terms of order dated 03-12-2013 of five members and submitted its report vide communication No. 1130/PS/AS/PHE, dated 22-01-2014 with the observation that the diploma in Quantity Surveying is not the same thing as Draftsman Civil. One of the experts stated that two years draftsman Civil course was previously run by government, Polytechnic and diploma was awarded by J&K State Board of Technical Education. The course being of two years duration was later on shifted to ITI’s throughout the country under the control of national Council of vocational training, directorate, General of employment and training, Delhi under Ministry of labour and employment for which prescribed norms of training and syllabus was framed by NC VTDGET, Ministry of labour and employment. It is also stated that there was no unanimity among the expert committee and all the experts had given different views. Despite that it was concluded that the diploma in quantity surveying is not the same thing as draftsman course (Civil).” 37. In terms of the decision of the committee dated 02-01-2014, no other qualification except Quantity Surveying was re-examined by the experts. As such the clarification dated 04-06-2012 was not considered by the experts in its totality. Moreover, the Judgment of Tariq Ahmed Rather supra was also not implemented in its true letter and spirit, resultantly, the confusion with respect to the minimum prescribed qualification for the post of draftsman is under clouds till date. Rule 13 of the Recruitment Rules of 1997 read is under- “13. Interpretation- if any question arises relating to the interpretation of these Rules, the matter shall be referred to the government whose decision thereon shall be final and binding.” 38. Rule 13 of the Recruitment Rules of 1997 read is under- “13. Interpretation- if any question arises relating to the interpretation of these Rules, the matter shall be referred to the government whose decision thereon shall be final and binding.” 38. The learned Single Judge in the case Tariq Ahmed Rather supra had directed the clarification given by the official respondents dated 04-06-2012, for reconsideration on the basis of the provision referred in Rule 13 of the Recruitment Rules of 1997, it was left open to the experts to be appointed by the Government, on the ground that this court does not have any expertise in such matters. It is very unfortunate that the respondents chose to take a decision without any consensus and had concluded only with respect to the eligibility of the candidates having diploma in Quantity Surveying, rest of the qualifications were left open to be decided by the Selection and Appointing Authorities at their own whims and caprice. 39. Petitioners have raised allegations against the official respondents for selecting and appointing candidates in past, who had three years diploma in Civil Engineering by way of CM No. 997/2024. Official respondents had sought time for filing response to these allegations, but they have chosen not to file the same. 40. The Tribunal has non-suited the petitioners by interpreting the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of draftsman by adding two years Draftsman with the diploma from the recognised Institute, whereas in the Recruitment Rules of 1997, it is not mentioned that the Diploma from any Government recognised Institute has to be two years in Draftsmanship. In terms of the Rules, draftsman can be promoted to the post of senior draftsman and then to the post of Head Draftsman. For the post of Junior Engineer Grade- II, 10% by promotion through department promotion committee from Draftsman/work supervisor and Shift Attendant having obtained degree/AMIE, three years diploma from Indian University/Government recognised Institute in Civil/mechanical/electrical Engineering discipline as applicable in the ratio of 4:2:2 respectively with at least five years Continuous/experience service in the respective categories. For the post of Junior Engineer Grade- II, 10% by promotion through department promotion committee from Draftsman/work supervisor and Shift Attendant having obtained degree/AMIE, three years diploma from Indian University/Government recognised Institute in Civil/mechanical/electrical Engineering discipline as applicable in the ratio of 4:2:2 respectively with at least five years Continuous/experience service in the respective categories. The contention of the petitioners is that if at an entry level only two years diploma in draftsman from any recognised Government Institute is to be considered, then the 10% quota supra cannot be filled up by the draftsman having three year diploma from Government recognised Institute by way of promotion, whereas, the contention of the official respondents is that the qualification of obtaining three-year diploma or degree can be attained by the draftsman during his service & he can further be promoted in this 10% quota. It is reflected from the record that many of the selected candidates have obtained Two years Draftsman Training Course Certificate after obtaining Three year Diploma from the recognised Institute. In fact two of the petitioners in the present petition have also been selected in subsequent selections and have been appointed as Draftsman on the basis of Two years Draftsman Training Course Certificate. They had already obtained Three year Diploma from the recognised Institute, but the same was not accepted by the respondents which constrained them to obtain an inferior qualification, despite having a higher qualification only to get themselves selected and appointed against the post of Draftsman. 41. In words of Justice Holmes: “a word is not a crystal transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought, and many vary greatly in colour and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used.” 42. Indeed, there is an ambiguity or uncertainty in the language used due to the limitations of the English language. It is possible for one word to have different meanings but it’s very important to take the rightful decision by interpreting the intent of the Rule making authority. Rule has to be framed mainly for the public benefit. Indeed, there is an ambiguity or uncertainty in the language used due to the limitations of the English language. It is possible for one word to have different meanings but it’s very important to take the rightful decision by interpreting the intent of the Rule making authority. Rule has to be framed mainly for the public benefit. The intention of the Rule making authority is to be construed when there is a possibility of two interpretations differently arising and this has to be essentially construed of two aspects, one is the concept of meaning that is what the words mean and another is the words that state the concept or purpose and object or the reason and spirit coming through the Rule. 43. The Supreme Court in case titled All India Council for Technical Education vs Surinder Kumar reported as 2009 SCCOnLine SC 378, in paragraphs 16 and 17 held as under:- “16. The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realizing the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education. 17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and role of courts are well defined by a simple Rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, courts will step in. In Dr. J.P.Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University [ 1980 (3) SCC 418 ] this Court observed : "Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread... While there is no absolute bar, it is a Rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies." 44. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment (supra), this court is not inclined to supplant its opinion by overstepping its jurisdiction. While there is no absolute bar, it is a Rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies." 44. In view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment (supra), this court is not inclined to supplant its opinion by overstepping its jurisdiction. Conclusion : 45. Since it’s an admitted fact that respondents have been appointed and are discharging their duties from last two years, against the post of Draftsman on the basis of minimum qualification interpreted by respondents as Two years draftsman certificate / two years diploma in draftsman from Government recognised Institute and two petitioners in the instant petition have also been selected on the basis of same minimum qualification, therefore, it will not be proper to quash the selection / appointment of the candidates for no fault on their part. To this extent we are not interfering with the impugned order. The record reveals that respondents are adhering to this interpretation since 2014 after the decision was taken by the experts with respect to Quantity Surveying only. As far as the interpretation of the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of draftsman as per Recruitment Rules of 1997, is concerned the Rules are completely silent insofar as far as it relates to the term and field of the diploma. The Rule making authority could preconceive the difficulties which could arise in interpretation of the Rules that is the reason Rule 13 was incorporated to the Recruitment Rules of 1997. This court is not an expert on the subject, as such this court is extremely reluctant to substitute its own views. It is within the domain of an expert to examine the actual intent of the Rule making authority moreso when the Government has already been provided an authority to take a final decision in terms of Rule 13 of the Recruitment Rules of 1997. 46. In view of above, we dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: i) The official respondents No 1 & 2 are directed to constitute a team of experts for examining the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of draftsman in terms of Recruitment Rules of 1997, with respect to its term and field of diploma of the candidates, in its right perspective. ii) The committee to be constituted by respondent no. ii) The committee to be constituted by respondent no. 1 & 2 are also directed to examine and clarify the intent of the Rule making authority in inclusion of three-year diploma holders for 10% quota prescribed for the post of Junior Engineers Grade II as per Recruitment Rules of 1997. iii) The Committee is directed to submit its recommendations after obtaining consensus of the experts to the Government within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order. iv) The Government is directed to take a final decision in terms of Rule 13 of the Recruitment Rules of 1997, to settle the controversy once and for all, within a period of one month thereafter. However, it is made clear that till the final decision of the Government, in compliance to the observations made above is taken, no selection/appointment to the post of Draftsman shall be carried out by the respondents. 47. Disposed off.