JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 4.10.2002. The facts in details are given in the judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same.
3. It appears that an advertisement was issued by the U. P. Public Service Commission dated 16.7.1999 inviting applications for selection to the post of Regional Inspector (Technical) and Assistant Regional Inspector (Technical) in the Transport Department, U. P. Government. Para 5 of the advertisement provided for the essential qualification for the post. This includes practical experience of at least five years in a large automobile workshop. The candidature of the writ petitioner was rejected on the ground that he did not possess five years experience in a large automobile workshop.
4. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the ground that the U. P. Transport (Subordinate)Technical Service Rules, 1980, which requires five years experience in a large automobile workshop has been superseded by the statutory notification dated 12.6.1989 issued by the Central Government under Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. That notification has been quoted in the Judgment of the learned single Judge. Clause 3 of the qualification therein required working experience of at least one year in a reputed workshop. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner has more than one year experience in a reputed workshop. Hence, in our opinion under the notification of the 1989 he is qualified.
5. We agree with the learned single Judge that the statutory notification of 1989 of the Central Government has superseded, the qualifications prescribed by the 1980 Rules made by the State Government.
6. Sri M. A. Qadeer learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the 1989 Rules states that working experience should be of at least one year. He submitted that hence the required qualification can be of more than one year. We do not agree. The words "at least one year" relates to the factual requirement that the candidate must have worked for "at least one year" in a reputed automobile workshop. The expression "at least one year" does not mean that the legal minimum essential qualification could be raised beyond one year. Hence, this submission of Sri Qadeer cannot be accepted.
7. Sri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that in fact the petitioner had five years experience of working in a large workshop on the date of the advertisement. The petitioner had worked for 2-1/2 years in a recognised automobile workshop, i.e., Hindustan Automobile, Aligarh and he has also worked for three years at Zahoor Mistri workshop which according to Sri Singh was also a large automobile workshop.
8. The U. P. Public Service Commission did not accept the experience in Zahoor Mistri workshop because it was not approved by the State Government vide Annexure" 1 to the writ petition. In our opinion, the word 'approved' is not to be found either in the 1980 Rules or the 1989 notification. Of course, it can be verified whether the workshop where the candidate had experience was factually a large automobile workshop or not but there is no legal requirement that the workshop should be approved by the Government. However, we are not deciding the dispute whether Zahoor workshop is a large workshop or not because the experience there was discarded only on the ground that it was not approved by the Government without considering whether it was large or not. In our opinion, it is not necessary to go into the above question because we are of the opinion that since there is no dispute that the writ petitioner had more than one year's experience in a large automobile workshop, he was qualified for the post.
9. Shri Qadeer then submitted that in the advertisement the requirement was of 5 years experience. In our opinion, when there is a conflict between the rules/statutory notification and the advertisement, the former will prevail.
10. According to the eminent jurist Kelsen, in the legal system of every country there is a hierarchy in laws. In India this hierarchy is as follows :
(i) The Constitution of India,
(ii) Statutory law, which may be either Parliamentary or law made by the State Legislature,
(iii) Delegated legislation which may be in various forms, e.g., rules made under an Act, regulations made under the Act, notifications under an Act, etc.,
(iv) Administrative Instruction or executive orders.
11. The settled principle is that if there is any conflict between a higher law in the hierarchy and a lower law, then the higher law will prevail. The rules/statutory notifications are in the third layer in the hierarchy of laws as stated above. An advertisement is in the fourth layer because it is in substance merely an executive or administrative order. Hence. If there is conflict between the third layer and fourth layer in the hierarchy of laws, then the third layer of law will prevail. Logically, it follows that if there is conflict between the essential qualifications prescribed by the Rules/statutory notification and the advertisement prescribing the qualification, then the qualification prescribed in the rules/statutory notification will prevail, and the qualification prescribed by the advertisement has to be declared invalid. Hence, even if the advertisement for the post required five years working experience, that will not help the appellant as the statutory notification of 1989 prescribed only one year working experience.
12. Sri Qadeer then contended that the statutory notification dated 12.6.1989 had not been communicated to the U. P. Public Service Commission. In our opinion, this is wholly irrelevant because ignorance of law is no excuse.
13. The 1980 Rules of the State Government, in our opinion, were superseded by the 1989 statutory notification of the Central Government issued under Section 213(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act which amounts to delegated legislation.
14. For the reasons given above we see no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed.