K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—The appeal assails the judgment of the learned Single Judge which declined a direction to consider the Engineering Graduates for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors. The qualification prescribed was a 10th Standard pass from a recognized Board and a three year Diploma in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering. The appellant contended that a Graduate degree in Engineering is a higher qualification and hence he would also be entitled to be considered, especially when the eligibility criteria as per the Bihar Transport (Technical) Cadre Rules, 2003 speaks of the minimum qualification of a Diploma, which takes in the higher qualification.

2. The learned Single Judge framed two questions; as to whether the Graduate petitioners were entitled to be selected and appointed as Motor Vehicle Inspectors and whether this Court could re-write the minimum qualification prescribed by the amended Rules of 2019 and incorporate or read in the Graduate Engineers qualification. The learned Single Judge found that admittedly the petitioners do not have the qualification of Diploma. The decisions cited were found to be only based on the relevant statutory rule. Nair Service Society vs. T. Beermasthan and others; (2009) 5 SCC 545 was relied on to find that by way of judicial review there can be no incorporation of words in statute or rule until there is serious ambiguity. The Courts were held to have no power to tinker with the statutory rule or usurp the legislative function under the disguise of interpretation, as has been held in Union of India vs. Harjeet Singh Sandhu; (2001) 5 SCC 593. The learned Single Judge also found that there can be no equivalence of qualifications relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devendra Bhaskar vs. State of Haryana: LL 2021 SC 680. The writ petition was dismissed.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Y.V. Giri specifically relied on Jyoti K.K. and Others vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others; (2010) 15 SCC 596 and Puneet Sharma and Others vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and Another; (2021) 16 SCC 340. In both the above cases though the qualification prescribed was of Diploma, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had permitted Engineering Graduates also to apply and be considered for the post. The Graduate qualification in Engineering is definitely a higher qualification than a Diploma in Engineering, is the compelling contention raised by the appellant.

4. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, cautioned this Court from interfering with the statutory rule. There can be no equivalence of qualification and by way of an interpretation there can be no incorporation of a higher qualification, is the contention. Learned Government Advocate also relied on a Constitution Bench judgment in Mohammad Shujat Ali and others vs. Union of India and others; (1975) 3 SCC 76.

5. We have looked at Puneet Sharma (supra) which has considered the various decisions on the point including Jyoti K.K. (supra). We have to immediately notice the opening statement of the decision in Puneet Sharma ..“As is evident, this issue is not novel and has an almost endemic tendency requiring judicial attention, albeit in myriad and diverse context” (sic Paragraph 2). This gives sufficient indication that merely because Graduation is a higher qualification than Diploma, it cannot be imported into every case without looking at the rule and the context in which the qualifications are framed.

6. The learned Judges while referring to Jyoti K.K. (supra) specifically referred to Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules which indicates reckoning of not only qualifications recognized by executive orders or standing orders of Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the special rules, but also such other higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post. In Jyoti K.K. (supra) the selection