WA 291/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. GOSWAMI The appellants are aggrieved by a common judgment and order dated 15.5.2 007 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) 7423/2003, WP(C) 7222/2003 and WP( C) 8583/2003. 2. The question concerns the interpretation of a Circular dated 10.3.2003 i ssued by the appellants with respect to a Departmental Competitive Examination f or recruitment of Junior Telecom Officer ( 15% quota of vacancies) held during t he years 1999 and 2000. By the said Circular, certain qualifying standards were relaxed by the appellants. We are not concerned with the relaxation given. 3. The only question for our consideration is the interpretation of Clause (iv) of the Circular dated 10.3.2003 which reads as follows: The above relaxation would be applied to either of the two examinations i.e. th e examination held in the year 1999 or in the year 2000 whichever was later. In short, the relaxation will not be applicable to both the examinations where the examination has been held in both the years but will be applicable to the last e xamination held in a circle under 15% quota and shall not be a precedent for any future examination held in a circle under 15% quota and shall not be a preceden t for any future examination. 4. A plain reading of Clause (iv) above indicates that the relaxation would be applicable to the examinations held either in the year 1999 or in the year 2 000 whichever was later. 5. The respondents had participated in the examination held in the year 199 9 although the vacancies related to the year 1998. Some vacancies arose in the c adre of Junior Telecom Officer in 2000 also, but the examination in respect of t hese vacancies was held in the year 2001. 6. According to the respondents, no examination was held in the year 2000 a nd the Circular dated 10.3.2003 was not relatable to vacancies. The Circular is, therefore, applicable to the examination held in 1999. This interpretation, whi ch is a literal interpretation of the Circular, was accepted by the learned Sing le Judge. 7. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the year in which vacan cies arose is of importance. Since the vacancies arose in the year 2000, the app ellants were entitled to relax the qualifying standards in terms of the Circular dated 10.3.2003 in respect of those vacancies, even though the examination for those vacancies was held in 2001. 8. Unfortunately for the appellants, we are in agreement with the view expr essed by the learned Single Judge. The Circular is very clear in its language an d meaning, namely, that the relaxed standards would apply only in respect of the examinations held in the year 1999 or in the year 2000 whichever was later. The Circular does not mention the vacancies and it is relatable only to the holding of examinations, not vacancies. 9. Admittedly, no examination was held in 2000 and so the Circular is appli cable to the examination held in 1999. 10. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to take a different view from that of the learned Single Judge. 11. We do not find any merit in these writ appeals. Consequently, the writ a ppeals are dismissed.