Divsio Bnch Hbn’le Shi Sunil Kmar Sha & in e: b r u in Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava’,’ JJ. rit Aeal No. 82 ofr2009 rcna t a anote Versus hg ah State of Chattisarh and noter Wit A'/ 1 f 2009 r npealNo. 10 o “alsh Kumar ngh and others’ Vs ersu State of Chattisgar an oters hh d h APPANS ELLT And rit Appeal No. brs a nd otes AETS PPLLAN Versus RESND POENTS State of Cattsgaran hhihd otes hr Sdl- Mamndra Mohan Slmvastav \VVJW Judge Hon’b Shi K J. le r‘ Sunil umar Sinha,‘ r Sdl— W‘W 3% Post for prohouncement ofjudgment I . 12-2010 (7a } /\~7 ,, t Sd/- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W pp APPELLANTS Ah Rou nd hr RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS W 122/ 2009 Amih Chandr‘kar a hr Judgment for co a H HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, JJ. APPELLANTS PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS: Writ Aggeal No. 82 of 2009 1. Archna Rout, D/o Shri Parsurarn Rout, aged about 23 years, R/o, behind Civil Court, Ward No.21, Manendragarh, District Korea (CG) .Harish Singh, S/o Shri Narad Ram Sinha, aged about 22 years, R/o Sana Road, .Sanjay Nagar, Kurud, District Dhamtari (CG) Versus . State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S.‘ Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. The Director, Agriculture, Agriculture Directorate, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) \I- a Apgearance: Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, counsel for the appellants. Shri J.A. Lohanai, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. APPELLANTS PETITIONERS Writ Agpeal No. 101 of 2009 1. Ashish Kumar Singh son of Shri A.K.Singh, aged about 21 years, resident of Behind Dewangan Floor Mill, Chandash Kunj Mohlai Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) .Santosh Kumar Dewangan aged about 23 years son of Shri Poonaram Dewangan, resident of Near Dewangan Dharrnshala, Gaya Nagar, House No. 4/416 Distt. Durg (C.G.) . Narayan Kumar Sarkar, aged about 22 years, son of Late Shri Lala Ram DB: Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha 8a g1, (/7 Sarkar, resident of village and post Fingshwar, Tah. Rajim, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) . Bhupendra Kumar Verma, aged about 23 years, son of Shri Ravi Kumar Verma, resident of village and post Deorbija Tah. Berla Distt. Durg (C.G.) . Tameshwar Lal Sahu aged about 26 years, son of Shri Manrakhan Lal Sahu, resident of Village Diyabati, P — Darra, Tah. Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) . Kiran Verma D/o Shri Lalji Verma, aged about 21 years, R/o Shitalapara, Bhilai — 3, Distt. Durg (C.G.) . Om Prakash Mahale, aged about 24 years, son of Shri Anand Mahale, resident of Gunj Thana, P.S. Colony, Block — A, First Floor, Fafadih Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) ; Dushyant Kumar son of Shri Birendra Kumar aged about 22 years, resident of Stambh Chowk, Mini Mata Nagar,Utai RAod, Newai, Bhilai, Distt.Durg (C.G.) . Vinay Kumar Nayak, aged about 23 years, son of Shri Rohit Kumar Nayak, resident of 54-F, Risali Sector, Bhilai Nagar, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Mukesh Kumar son of KS. Sonwani, aged about 23 years, resident of J/ 18/C Maroda Sector Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Yogeshwar Singh Patel son of Late Shri Chitren Singh Patel, aged about 37 years, resident of ward No. 10 Qtr. No. 5, Near Kabirkuti Bemetara, Distt. Durg (CG) years, son of Shri M.L.Damle, resident of Gota Tola, P.S. Mohala, TAh. Mohala, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Jaishree Verma, aged about 23 years, l3. 10. 11. Nitesh Kumar Damle, aged about 24 12. daughter of Shri Lalji Verma, resident of Shitalapara Bhilai — 3, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Sunil Kumar Madhariya, aged about l4. 23 years, son of Shri Shankarlal Madhariya, R/o Qtr. No. 409/5/A, Balco. Nagar, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) . Purendra Dev Verma, aged about 24 years, son of Shri M.L.Verma, resident of I Pocket, 3/D Marora Sector Bhilai, -_ Dist. Durg (C.G.) 16. Manish Kumar Sahu aged about 23 years, son of Shri K.R.Sahu, resident of 30/C ,HSCL Colony, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 17. Manoj Kumar S/o Harish Chandra, aged about 26 years, R/o village Joratarayee, Post Office Bhathgaon (R) Tah. Gunderdehi, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 18. Vineet Das son of John Samuel Das, aged about 30 years, resident of Near Railway Gate Tumgaon Road, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 19. Rakesh Singh Yadav, aged about 21 years, son of Shri Vidhya Shankar Singh Yadav, resident of Near Pente Costal Church Nirmala S.T.D. Ram Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 20. Tilendra Kumar Sahu, aged about 22 years, son of Shri Namdas Sahu, resident of Neelam 9/F Virat Property Dealer, Dhanora Road, Borsi, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Deptt. of Agriculture, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 3. The Director, Deptt. of Agriculture, Directorate, Raipur (CG) , 4. The Registrar, Indira Gandhi Krishi University Krishak Nagar Raipur (CG) Appearanc z Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, counsel for the appellants. Shri J.A. Lohanai, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3. APPELLANTS PETITIONERS And Writ Appeal No. 1221 2009 1. Ambrish Chandrakar s/o Sri Viyash Narayan Chandrakar, aged about 26 years, res1dent of Near Congress Bhavan Balod Tah511 Balod D1str1ct Durg (C G ) .Uttam Tamrakar, son of Sri P.LTamrakar, aged about 24 years, Resident of House No. 121/3, Tamerpara, ’Durg, District Durg (C.G.) . Toshan Kumar Chandrakar son of Sri Yashwant Chandrakar, aged about 26 years, resident of Mono Niwas, Ward No. 18, New Ravanbhatha, Mahasmund, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.) Pankaj Kumar Nag, son of Sri Ram Kumar aged about 25 years, resident of village and Post Shankergarh (Block Para) Samri, Tahsil Kusmi, District Surguja (C.G.) Shashank Shukla, son of Sri Yashwant Shukla, aged about 24 years, res1dent of Sundar Nagar Mahadev Ghat Road Near RaJkishori Vivah Bhavan Ralpur Tahs11 and District Raipur (C.G.) . Mukesh Kumar son of Sri Halakhore Sahu, aged about 25 years, resident of village Murkhusara, Post Aanvari, Police Station and Tahsil Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) Naveen Kumar Dewangan, son of Shri Jeevrakhan Lal, aged about 25 years, C/ o K L Udyaniki Mahavidyalaya, Gunderdahi Road Pohimadih (Balak Chhatravas) Village 85 Post Pohiya, District Durg (C.G.) .Nirmal Singh Jangre, son of Sri Paritosh Singh Jangre aged about 24 years Rural Agriculture Development Officer Block Paudhekunj, District JanJgir-Champa (C G ) .Satish Kumar Verma son of Sri Sukhuram Verma aged about 23 years C/o Santkumar Verma Village Kodva Post Sasaha, Police Station Palari, District Raipur (C.G.) 10. 11. Khomeshwar Prasad Soni, son of Sri Ramvishal Soni, aged about 24 years, R/o village and Post Amadad (Pendra) Via Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Sunil Kumar Sahu Son of Sri Chheduram Sahu, aged about 26 years, Resident of Quarter No. SF 895, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Colony, Kosabadi, Korba (East) District Korba (C.G.) 12 . Gajendra Kumar Karas, son of Sri Keshav Prasad Karas, aged about 24 years, C/o Shri K.P.Karas, Behind Mamta Electronics, Sindhi Camp, P.O. Tilda Newara (C.G.) Raipur Distt. Kumari Rashmi Kumhar,. Daughter of Sri Girwar Kumhar, aged about 22 years, C/o K.L. Horticulture College, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Bhagyasri Gupta Daughter of Sri Jem Prakash Gupta, aged about 23 years, C/o Mandakini Gils Hostel, Room No. 218, Krishak Nagar, Jora E.G.K.V.V. Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 15. 14. Harendra Kumar Sahu, son of Sri Bharat Kumar Sahu, aged about22 years, C/o Village Banjari, Post Arjund, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) Anthresius Tigga, son of Shri Matius 16. Tigga, aged about 25 years, C/o Shri Hemchand Yayak, . E.G.K.V.V. Krishank Nagar, V.C . Campus, Raipur (C.G.) 17. Nand Kumar Son of Sri Ghanaram aged about 23 years, C/o village Ira, Tahsil Kurud, District, Dhamtari (C.G.) Pravin Ramteke, Son of Sri 18. T.R.Ramteke, aged about 25 years, Resident of House No. 40/1175, Sanjay Nagar Main Road, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Vinod Kumar, Koreti, Son of Shri S.R.Koreti, aged about 28 years, C/o Shri S.R.Koreti, Qr. No. 111—112 Double MIG, B Block Vijeta Complex, New Rajendra Nagar, 5 @ 13. 19. Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) 20. Bhilendra Kumar Sahu son of Sri Romlal Sahu, aged about 28 years, R/o Village .Bohira, P.O. Palari, Tahsil Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) 21. Keshendra Kumar son of Sri Giriraj Son, aged about 23 years, C/o village Bhatheli, P.O. Bhakhara, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) . Dihu Ram Patel, son of Sri Chhabilal Patel, aged about 26 yearsa, C/o village Senpuwa, Post Chhati, Tahsil and Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 23. Kumari Aruna Tirki son of Sri Santosh Kuzur, aged about 25 years, C/o LIG 579, Sector 2 Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Danganiya, Near Goal Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur - (C.G.) 24. Jayant Kumar son of Sri Bihari Lal, aged about 23‘years, C/o Post Office Parsada, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) 25. Thaneshwar Singh son of Sri Munniram, aged about 24 years, C/o Shivam Hostel, Room No. 22, I.G.K.V. Krishank Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 26. Ghanshyam Korram, son of Sri C.R.Korram, aged about 25 years, C/o Shiv Chowk,: Baniyapara, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District t Dhamtari (C.G.) 27. Bhupendra Kumar son of Sri Loknath, aged about 24 years, C/o Pendravahi, Abadipara, Amba Chowk, Police Station and Post Kanvvar, Tahsil Balod, District Durg (C,G.) 28. Naval Kishore Sahu, son of Sri Brijesh Kurnar Sahu, aged about 24 years, C/o Village and Post Pallari, Tahsil Gurur, District Durg (C.G.) 29. Devendra Mohan son of Sri Doman Singh, aged about 26 years, C/o \n‘llage Chandragej, Post and Tahsil Gundardehi, District Durg (C.G.) 30. Dilip Kumar Bande son of Sri Diloram Bande, aged about 25 years, Co Borsi Bhatha, Ward no. 5O Post / Office Borsi Colony, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) Zuned Khan son of Sri Nasir Khan, aged about 23 years, Resident of Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (co) Harpal Singh son of Sri Gyan Singh, 32. aged about 24 years, Satyam Balak Chhatrawas, Room No. 66, Agriculture College, Krishak Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Romash Kumar Suryawanshi son of Sri Rameshwar Singh Suryawanshi, aged about 24 years, C/o Shivam Hostel, Room No. O7, Agriculture College, Krishak Nagar,Jora, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Ukesh Kumar Chandrawanshi, Son 34. of Shri D.S.Thakur, aged about 24 years, C/o Village Kandul Post Office Kandul, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.) Sameer Kumar Son of Sri Aangar Say, aged about 24 years, C/o village Sontarai, Post Devgarh, Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Shailendra 36. about 2H years, R/o village Chalta, Post Soor (Sitapur) District Surguja (C.G.) .Hardik Tank, son of Sri Bhimgi‘ Tank, aged about 23 years, village Kolchure (Pujari Para) Post Kolapur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) Manok Kumar Paikra Son of Sri Rajkumar P aikra, aged about 24 years, R/o village Pahanda, Post Mijhunwagaon (Kota) District Bilaspur (C.G.) Pravin Kumar Bharti son of Sri' Chhatrapati Ram, aged about 27 years, R/o village and Post Pratapgarh, Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Sheikh Faridudin Ansari, son of Sri 40. Sheikh Badruddin Ansari, aged about 24 years, R/o village and Post Dharsinva, District Raipur, (C.G.) Pavan Kumar Son of Sri Gopal Ram, 31. 33. 35. Kumar Vinshi, S/oRameshwar PrasadVinshi, aged 38. 39. 41. RESPONDENTS aged about 25 years, R/o Village and Post Soor, Tahsil Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Pradeep Kumar Lakra, Son of Sri Subhash Lakra, aged about 25 years, C/o Sri S.R.Koreti, 111—112, Vijeta Complex, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil and District Suman Lal Patel, son of Sri Mohan Lal Patel, aged about 24 years, C/o Room No. 71, Satyam Chhatrawas Agriculture College, Krishak Nagar, Jora, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Versus 42. Raipur (C.G.) 43. 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Deptt. of Agriculture, DKS Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Director, Agriculture Directorate Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) Registrar, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Krishak Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Writ Apyeals ulS 2 (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court [Apyeal Agpearance: to Division Bench) Act, 2006 Smt. Hamida Siddique, counsel for the appellants. Shri J.A. Lohanai, Panel Lawyer for the State/res No. 1 &2. J Per Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. 1. By the aforesaid intra—Court appeals, correctness, legality and passed in validity of common order dated 20th March, 2009 w.P (S) No.2845/08, WP (S) No.3118/08, WP(S) No.2824/08 8L WP. (S) No.4568/08, has been assailed by the appellants. pondents U D G M E N T (Delivered on l '5#‘December, 2010) . Writ Appeal No. 82/09 arises out of W.P (S) No.4568/08, Writ Appeal No.101/09 arises out of W.P. (S) No.3118/08 8t, Writ Appeal No.122/09 arises out of WP. (S) No.2824/08. . Vide impugned order, all the aforesaid writ petitions, out of which present appeals arise, were decided as common question of law and fact was involved in the batch of aforementioned writ petitions. . Facts necessary and relevant for decision of the aforesaid appeals are that an advertisement dated 31st October, 2007 (filed as Annexure A-3 in W.A. No.122/09) was issued by the Directorate, Agriculture, State of Chhattisgarh, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Rural Agriculture Extension Officer (hereinafter referred to as “R.A.E.O.”). The last date for submission of application was 26.11.2007. The appellants in Writ Appeal No.82/09, arising out of W.P. (S) No.4568/08, are possessed of the degree of B.Sc. (Agriculture Biotechnology); the appellants in Writ Appeal No.101/09, arising out of W.P(S) No.3118/08, are possessed of degree of B.Tec. (Agriculture Engineering) 8L M.Tec. (Agriculture Engineering), whereas appellants in W.A. No.122/09, arising out of W.P. (S) No.2824/08, are possessed of degree of B.Sc. (Horticulture) and M.Sc. (Agriculture). Pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.10.2007, the appellants in the aforesaid writ appeals also submitted their applications '@ offering their candidature for appointment to the post of Rural Agriculture Extension Officer. 5. The advertisement, in clause 1 thereof, prescribed graduate in agriculture as essential educational qualification. The appellants in the aforesaid writ appeals were permitted to write examination for selection to the post of R.A.E.O. After examination, result was declared on 29.12.2007 {Annexure P— 29 in W.P. (S) No.2824/O8}. The petitioners were declared successful and they were placed in the select list. In the 'meantime, the State Government issued a letter/memo dated 28.1.2008 addressed to the Director, Agriculture, Chhattisgarh, Raipur {Annexure P—33 in W.P (S) No.2824/08} in which it was stated that the State Govt. recognizes B.Sc. i (Agriculture) , B . Sc. (Horticulture) , B . Sc. Agriculture (Biotechnology) and B.Tech. as graduate in Agriculture. The aforesaid memo was issued with reference to letter dated 1.1.2008 of the Director, Agriculture. On the basis of the said memo/letter dated 28.1.2008, the appellants, though not possessed of B.Sc. (Agriculture) degree, were also treated as qualified leading to their selection. However, thereafter, the State Govt. issued order dated 7.5.2008 {filed as Annexure P-l in W.P (S) No. 2824/08} by which earlier letter/memo dated 28.1.2008 and letter dated 10.4.2008 were cancelled with immediate effect and it was stated therein that, as per rules, those who are possessed of minimum educational c9 11 qualification of Agriculture graduate (B.Sc. Agriculture) be selected and appointments order be issued. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 7.5.2008, the appellants in the aforesaid writ appeals filed their respective writ petitions. By the impugned common order passed in the batch of writ petitions, learned Single Judge has dismissed all the writ petitions holding that the advertisement prescribed graduate in Agriculture as the minimum educational qualification and the appellants, undisputedly, were not possessed of the said qualifications of B.Sc. (Agriculture). The learned Single Judge held that after the process of selection was initiated by issuance of advertisement dated 31.10.2007, requisite qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of R.A.E.O. could not be changed. It was held that inclusion of other qualifications and recognizing them as equivalent to, and included in the qualification of Agriculture graduate Vide memo dated 28.1.2008, after holding the examination and during the selection process pursuant to advertisement, was not permissible, as this amounted to changing the rules during the process of selection which is not permissible. under the law. It was thus held that withdrawal/cancellation of letter dated 28.1 .2008 was of no relevance and even if the petitioners were allowed to participate in the examination and found successful, in the scrutiny, they were not entitled to appointment as they are not possessed of requisite qualification as prescribed in the advertisement. évx” 7. Learned counsel for the appellant appearing in W.A. No.122/O9 has contended that the issuance of letter dated 21.8.2008, recognizing other qualifications, namely B.Sc. (Horticulture), B.Sc. Agriculture (Biotechnolog) and B.Tech as graduate in Agriculture qualifications, did not amount to any change in the prescription of minimum educational qualification prescribed in the advertisement dated 31.10.2007 as all those qualifications fall under the qualification of Agriculture graduate and therefore, the appellants were possessed of the minimum required qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of R.A.E.O.. It was further contended that the said letter dated 28. 1.2008 was only explanatory in nature in View of the memo dated 1.1.2008 of the Director, Agriculture and the State Govt, having rightly issued such a clarification, was not justified in withdrawing/canceling the same by subsequent letter dated 7.5.2008. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants, referring to various documents (Annexures A-2, A~3, A~6 85 A—7 filed along with W.A. No. 122/09) which were filed as Annexures P—37, P—28, P-33 8a P—31 respectively in Writ Petition (S) No.2824/08, as also referring to Annexure A-4, mark sheet of M.Sc. (Agriculture) of one Shashi Bhushan Singh and Annexure A—S, mark sheet of B.Sc. (Herticulture) of the same person submitted that Agriculture graduate encompasses within itself and includes not only B.Sc. (Agriculture) but also B.Sc. (Horticulture) and B.Tech. In the submission of learned counsel for the appellants, it was, therefore, not a case that after issuance of advertisement, there was any change in the qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of R.AIE.O. Consequently, subsequent order of the Government passed on 7.5.2008, after the appellants were treated as qualified and allowed to participate in the examination and then selected, was wholly illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that all these aspects were not considered byv learned Single Judge before coming to the conclusion that subsequent explanation dated 28.1.2008 had the effect of expanding and including qualifications other than the qualification prescribed in the advertisement. /- 9. Learned counsel for the appellants appearing in W.A. No.82/ 10 'made similar submissions by referring to Annexure A—2 (filed as Annexure P-3 in W.P. (S) No.4568/08), with specific reference to Clauses 2.22, 3.05 85 7.01 thereof that those who are possessed of B.Sc. (Agriculture) or B.Sc. Horticulture or B.Sc. (Agriculture Biotechnolog) or B.Tech. have all been recognized as Agriculture graduates only. He argued that the words “Agriculture Graduates” occurring in the advertisement is not confined to B.Sc. (Agriculture) only but includes all those qualifications pertaining to the Faculty of Agriculture. In his submission, the word “Agriculture Graduate” as mentioned in the advertisement always meant to include all the degrees as aforementioned and vide letter dated 28.1.2008, it was only explained and it cannot be said that other qualifications were subsequently added in addition to the minimum educational qualification prescribed in the advertisement. He further argued that the word “Agriculture” as defined in Section 2 (i) of the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwa Vidayala Adhiniyam, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1987”) is very wide and comprehensive and therefore, the word “Agriculture” occurring in the advertisement has to be understood in that sense only which would include various branches and faculty of courses relating to Agriculture, be it B.Sc.(Horticulture), B.Sc. (Agriculture Biotechnology) or B.Tech. In order to buttress‘his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the decisions in the case of Dr. M. C. Gu ta. 8a Ors. Vs. Dr. Arun Kumar Gu ta 8; Ors.1, N Suresh Nathan and another Vs. Union of India 85 Ors.2, Dhanajay Malik 85 Ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal 8a Ors.3. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants in W.A. No.101/O9 also argued on similar lines by submitting that the qualification prescribed in the advertisement was Agriculture graduate which could not be given a narrow and strict meaning to mean only B.Sc. Agriculture. According to him also, the graduates holding various degrees like B.Sc. (Horticulture), B.Sc. (Agriculture Biotechnology) and B.Tech. are all 1 (1979) 2 scc 339 2 1992 Suppl. (1) scc 584 3 2008 AIR scw 2158 ’\\ 15 Agriculture graduates and letter dated 28.1.2008 only explained that those qualifications were also implicit in qualification of graduate in Agriculture prescribed in the advertisement and it was not any new addition so as to say that subsequent to advertisement any qualification were also included in the prescription of educational qualification stated in the advertisement. 11. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge and submitted that the word “$cl§ W” occurring in the advertisement clearly meant that the educational qualification was B.Sc. in Agriculture and nothing more. He submitted that though, after the process of selection had commenced, a letter was issued on 28.1.2008, later on, the same was cancelled vide letter dated 7.5.2008 as the qualification B.Sc. (Horticulture), B.Sc. (Agriculture Biotechnology) and B.Tech. (Agriculture Engineering ), B.Tech. (Dairy Technologi) are not one and the same and they are qualifications in different discipline (subjects). Referring to syllabus for under graduate programme leading to the award of B.Sc. (Ag./Hort./Biotech.), B.Tech.(D.T.), B.Tech. Agril. Engg.) and B.VSc. 8a AH, it has been submitted that they all i are different discipline (subjects) therefore, Agriculture graduate would only mean B.Sc. (Agriculture) in view of the statutory prescription of qualification under Chhattisgarh Subordinate Agriculture (Non-Ministerial) Service Rule, 1972 (hereinafter referred to aS"‘the Rules of 1 972”). 12. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge and perused the records. 13. The learned Single Judge after considering the pleading of the parties in the batch of writ petitions, which are substantially similar in all the petitions as also taking into consideration the stand taken by the respondents in their return, field in W.P. (S) No.3118/08, applying the principle laid down in the matter of K. Man'ushree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another4, Ashok Jumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India & 0rs5 81, Director, SCTI for Medical Science 8a Technologv 8a another Vs. M. Pushkarané has come to the conclusion that once the process of selection commenced vide Advertisement dated 31.10.2007, inclusion or further extension/expansion of any qualification after holding the examination during selection process pursuant to the advertisement, is not permissible and thereafter withdrawal of the said explanation is also of no relevance. It has also been held in the impugned order that no extension/expansion or modification of the requisite educational qualification as prescribed in the advertisement during selection process is permissible. It has 4 (2008) 3 scc 512 5 (2007) 4 scc 54 6 (2003) 1 scc 448 17 ' €367 also been held that even if the petitioners, appellants herein, have been permitted to write examination and during scrutiny they have been found successful, they are not entitled to appointment as they do not possess requisite qualification as prescribed in the advertisement. 14. In order to appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and focus our attention on’ the issue arising for consideration in the aforesaid writ appeals, it is relevant to refer to the educational qualification prescribed in the advertisement dated 30.1.2007. A perusal of the advertisement in clause 1 thereof under the title “E03 $1 W 1am rd W” mentions “arm—c5 am errant —$cf& we”. The qualification of “ails W” as mentioned in the advertisement is obviously for the purposes of making appointment to the post of Rural Agricultural Extension Officer. It has not been disputed by any of the parties before the Court that the re— " designation relates to the post known as Village Level Workers (in short “V.L.W.") as occurring in the relevant Recruitment Rules known as M.P. Subordinate Agriculture (Non— Ministerial) Service Rules, 1972. This would be clear from the averments made by respondent/State in their return, which has not been substantially disputed by the petitioner by filing rejoinder. Thus, it is clear that the