M.M. Kumar, C.J. - The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order dated 12.11.2012 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court, holding that the appellant-petitioner is not eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Range Officer-Grade-I because he lacked prescribed educational qualification in terms of J&K Forest Service (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1970 as amended by SRO 3 dated 05.01.1994, (for brevity the Rules).

2. According to the schedule appended to the Rules, the qualification provided for appointment to the post is B.Sc. Forestry or its equivalent from any University recognised by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The aforesaid qualification was notified in the advertisement notice to which the appellant-petitioner has responded. Admittedly appellant-petitioner is possessed of B.Sc. with Forestry as one of the subjects and also M.Sc. (Forestry).

3. The learned Single Judge found that the qualification of B.Sc. Forestry is a distinct and separate qualification then B.Sc. with Forestry as a subject. The claim of the appellant-petitioner was rejected, namely, that M.Sc. (Forestry) is a higher qualification and it would answer the B.Sc. Forestry and must be deemed equivalent. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K. and Ors. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, JT 2002 (Supp) I, 85 was distinguished on the ground that there was no similar rule to that of Rule 10(1) (II) of the Rules and also on the ground that B.Sc. Forestry is a complete course in itself. The learned Single Judge found that B. Sc. with Forestry as one of the subjects made him eligible to seek admission in M.Sc Forestry, therefore, it could not be presupposed that by holding the degree of M.Sc (Forestry) the appellant-petitioner is in possession of degree of B.Sc. Forestry as well. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on the view taken by Honble the Supreme Court in P.M. Latha and anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 541 and proceeded to hold that the prescribed qualification for the post of lower primary /upper primary teachers in the Government Schools of Kerala was Teacher Training Certificate and not B.Ed. qualification. The B.Ed. qualification in the absence of Teachers Training Certificate was not treated as higher qualification. It was also ruled that fixing of the eligibility qualification for a post is a function which belongs to the recruitment policy of the State. The learned Single Judge also found that it would be discriminatory if a person with B. Sc with Forestry as one of the subjects is made eligible because those with same qualification who did not apply in response to the advertisement notice would be deprived of consideration. It would thus violate the provisions of Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and are of the view that the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court.

5. We have also closely examined the record of this case and there is nothing therein which may suggest that the view of the learned Single Judge is afflicted by any illegality in any manner warranting interference of this Court. We reiterate that the appellant-petitioner was not eligible as he possessed B.Sc. degree with Forestry as one of the subjects whereas the requirement of the Rule as well as the advertisement notice was that in order to attain eligibility for appointment to the post of Ranger Officer Grade-I, one must have B.Sc. Forestry, which is a complete course in itself. The acquisition of M.Sc (Forestry) would not result in deleting the basic qualification of B.Sc. Forestry. We also concur with the view of the learned Single Judge that interpreting the rule in the manner desired by the appellant-petitioner would result in edging out those who have same qualification as that of the appellant-petitioner and did not apply with a bonafide belief that candidates with B. Sc. Forestry alone were eligible. There is no possibility of adopting any other construction of the rule which is plain in its language.

6. The appeal does not merit admission and the same is dismissed.