Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.The petitioner was a candidate for the post of Cane Supervisor in the Cane Department, Government of Uttarakhand. This is a post which is outside the purview of State Public Service Commission and the nodal body, who conducted the said examination, was "Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education". The essential qualification for the post of Cane Supervisor is that a candidate must be Intermediate with Agriculture as one of the essential subjects or High School with two years Diploma in Agriculture and thereafter, the person who has done Bachelor Degree in Agriculture shall be given preference.

2. The petitioner is not intermediate with Agriculture, however, she has done B.Sc. with Agriculture and thereafter, M.Sc. in Agriculture and has also done Ph. D. in the same subject i.e. Agriculture. Her candidature has not been considered since, according to the Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education, she lacks qualification of having Intermediate with Agriculture as essential subject, and this is the stand which has been given in the counter affidavit as well.

3. In view of this Court, the stand of the respondents for not considering the candidature of the petitioner on the basis of qualification was totally wrong for the reason that according to the Rules the essential qualification is either Intermediate in Agriculture as of the essential subjects or High School with two years Diploma in Agriculture. The petitioner is Intermediate, though she does not have the Diploma in Agriculture, however, she has a Degree in Agriculture Sciences. Moreover, undisputedly the petitioner is a Science Graduate in Agriculture and she has also done her post-graduation and Ph. D. in Agriculture. Therefore, she was fully qualified for the said post.

4. The Honble Apex Court in Jyoti K.K. and Others Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others, wherein the Honble Apex Court on a similar controversy regarding the higher qualification, which is of same stream will be presumed that he must be having a degree treating it qualified in lower degree. The relevant portion of the said decision contained in Para 9 reads as under:-

9. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The High Court is also justified in stating that the higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. If a person has acquired higher qualifications in the same faculty, such qualification can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In this case it may not be necessary to seek far. Under the relevant rules, for the post of assistant engineer, degree in electrical engineering of Kerala University or other equivalent qualification recognized or equivalent thereto has been prescribed. For a higher post when a direct recruitment has to be held, the qualification has to be obtained, obviously gives an indication that such qualification is definitely higher qualification than what is prescribed for the lower post, namely, the post of sub-engineer. In that view of the matter the qualification of degree in electrical engineering presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification of diploma in that subject prescribed for the post, shall be considered to be sufficient for that post. In the event the government is of the view that only diploma holders should have applied to post of sub-engineers but not all those who possess higher qualifications, either this rule should have excluded in respect of candidates who possess higher qualifications or the position should have been made clear that degree holder shall not be eligible to apply for such post. When that position is not clear but on the other hand rules do not disqualify per se the holders of higher qualifications in the same faculty, it becomes clear that the rule could be understood in an appropriate manner as stated above. In that view of the matter the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. In this case we are not concerned with the question whether all those who possess such qualifications could have applied or not. When statutory rules have been published and those rules are applicable, it presupposes that everyone concerned with such appointments will be aware of such rules or make himself aware of the rules before making appropriate applications. The High Court, therefore, is not justified in holding that recruitment of appellants would amount to fraud on the public.

5. In view of the above observation as well as considering the above judgment of the Honble Apex Court, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is treated to be qualified candidate for the post of Cane Supervisor. This Court has been informed that since out of 26 posts, which were reserved for women candidates only 2 posts were filled till date, therefore, the respondents are directed to give appointment to the petitioner, in case she fulfils all other criteria and qualifications and is otherwise qualified.