JUDGMENT

J.M.L. Singha, J. - This appeal is directed against the decision dated 13th December 1973 passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ No. 5291 of 1971.

2. The facts in so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus :-

The petitioner appellant was appointed as chief Artist and Designer in the Government Press, U. P., Lucknow on selection by the Public Service Commission. He was made permanent on that post with effect from 1st April 1962. In 1968 the post of Chief Artist and Designer was re-designated as Deputy Superintendent (Designs), but that post was declared to be ex-cadre post, as it was not included in the U. P. Specialists Service (Government Press Officers) Rules, 1931. The respondent No. 2 was appointed as Assistant Superintendent in 1955 and he was confirmed on that post with effect from 1st April 1960. In 1961 he was promoted to the post of the Joint Superintendent and was confirmed in the year 1964. In April 1967 the post of Superintendent, Printing and Stationery fell vacant. The State Government first decided to fill that post by direct recruitment but later, on a representation of the officers of the department, the State Government decided to fill that post by departmental promotion on the basis of merit. A departmental selection committee was constituted, which consisted of one representative of the Public Service Commission as its Chairman and the Secretary and the Special Secretary of the Industries Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 were candidates for appointment to the post of the Superintendent. The selection committee, after considering the cases of both of them recommended the respondent No. 2 for appointment to the said post. The State Government accepted the recommendation and appointed respondent No. 2 on the said post, vide order dated 19th May 1971. Feeling aggrieved against that the appellant filed writ petition No. 5291 of 1971. The petition was contested on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh as well as by respondent No. 2. The learned Single Judge, on a consideration of the entire material before him, came to the conclusion that there was no illegality in the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Superintendent, Printing and Stationery and accordingly dismissed the petition. It is against that order that the present appeal is directed.

3. It is the common case of the parties that appointment to the post of Superintendent, Printing and Stationery was to be made in accordance with the "United Provinces Specialists Service (Government Press Officers) Rules" of 1931, hereafter to be called the rules. A copy of those rules forms Annexure 2 of the Writ petition. The controversy between the parties revolves around the interpretation of Rule 4, sub- cl. (ii) which reads as under :?

"Technical ,Qualifications : No one shall be ELIGIBLE for appointment to any of the aforesaid posts unless-

(a) he is a qualified printer with practical experience in printing work; and

(b) he possesses a knowledge of a costing system of accounts."

4. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant before us, as also before the learned Single Judge, was that the expression "qualified printer" occurring in para (a) of sub-cl. (ii) of Clause 4 of the Rules means a printer who has obtained a certificate, degree or diploma in printing technology from any recognised institution either inside the country or outside the country. It was further contended that the respondent No. 2 did not hold any certificate, degree or diploma in printing technology from any institute whatsoever, and, consequently, he was not a qualified printer within the meaning of that expression as used in the rules and was therefore, not eligible for appointment. As opposed to this, the contention raised on behalf of State of Uttar Pradesh (respondent No. 1) as well as on behalf of respondent No. 2 was that the expression "qualified printer" should not be inte