JUDGMENT :

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

1. Whether higher qualification presupposes lower qualification always, is the basic question mooted for consideration. The answer given in the 'positive' by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition challenging the proceedings pursued contrary to the rules and advertisement, relying on the dictum in Jyoti K.K. & Others v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Others {(2010) 15 SCC 596}, is put to challenge in this appeal, placing reliance on the subsequent ruling rendered by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Anita & Others {(2015) 2 SCC 170} and Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Others {(2019) 2 SCC 404} where the earlier decision Jyoti K.K. & Others (supra) has been discussed and distinguished.

2. The sequence of events shows that the Public Works Department (for short 'the PWD') and the Geology and Mining Department (1st and 2nd Respondents), joining hands with the Panchayat & Rural Development Department, issued a combined recruitment Notification vide Annexure A/2 dated 08.02.2018 for filling up the posts of Draughtsman/Assistant Draughtsman (Civil) specifying the eligibility conditions, particularly, the qualifications in terms of the relevant rules. Even though, all the above three Departments were seeking to effect appointment to similar posts, the rules for recruitment are different. In the case of Mining and Geology Department, it is governed by the Chhattisgarh Geology and Mining Grade III (Clerical and Non-Clerical) Rules, 2008 (for short 'the 2008 Rules') whereas, in the case of Panchayat and Rural Development Department, the field is occupied by the Chhattisgarh Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Class III (Ministerial and Non-Ministerial) and Class IV Services Recruitment Rules, 2011 (for short 'the 2011 Rules'); while the recruitment in the PWD is based on the Chhattisgarh Public Works Department (Non-Gazetted) Service Entry Rules, 2016 (for short, 'the 2016 Rules'). In the instant case, the grievance stands confined only to the recruitment exercise in the PWD; governed by the 2016 Rules'.

3. At the very outset, it will be worthwhile to have reference to the 2016 Rules' (Annexure A/3) for appointment to the post of Assistant Draughtsman in the PWD. Rule 8(2) of the 2016 Rules reads as follows:

8- lh/kh HkrhZ ds fy, ik=rk dh 'krsaZ & lh/kh HkrhZ@p;u gsrq ik= gksus ds fy, vH;FkhZ dks fuEufyf[kr 'krsaZ iwjh djuh gksaxh] vFkkZr~%&

¼,d½ xxx xxx xxx

¼nks½ 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk,a&vHFkhZ ds ikl lsok ds fy;s ;Fkk fofgr ,slh 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk,a gksuh pkfg,] tSlk fd vuqlwph&rhu esa nf'kZr gSA

The educational qualification mentioned in Rule 8(2), is as given in Schedule III, which is to the following effect:

vuqlwph & rhu

¼fu;e 9 nsf[k;s½

l-Ø- lsok@inksa ds uke U;wure vk;q lhek vf/kdre vk;q lhek fofgr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk fVIif.k;ka

1- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

2- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

3- lgk;d ekufp=dkj ¼flfoy½ 18 o"kZ 35 o"kZ okLrqdyk esa i=ksikf/k vFkok vkS|ksfxd izf'k{k.k laLFkku ls flfoy@ bysDVªhdy@esdsfudy bathfu;fjax vFkok losZ;j dk O;olkf;d f'k{kqrk izek.ki= vFkok baMLVª;y dkÅafly vkQ oksds'kuy Vªsfuax ¼3 o"khZ;½ izek.ki=

4. On considering the qualification for recruitment to the post of Assistant Draughtsman, it is easily discernible that the qualification mentioned in Annexure A/3 '2016 Rules' are the same as notified in Annexure A/2 Advertisement. The Petitioners who were having 'ITI certificates' are duly qualified as per the Rules and as per the Advertisement to apply for the post of Assistant Draughtsman, who submitted their applications accordingly. A written test was conducted on 25.03.2018 and the results were declared in May, 2018. After evaluation, a list of successful candidates was published on 01.09.2018 and thereafter, the candidates were called for verification of the documents to be held on 17.09.2018 and 18.09.2018. After scrutiny, Annexure A/4 'provisional list' of successful candidates was published on 19.09.2018; when the Appellants came to know for