In The State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. Fateh Chand[ AIR 1970 SC 1099] and Another, Rule 23 A came for consideration. It purports to hold that the expression “qualification” occurring in the said rule means qualification on the satisfaction of which only the person in question could have been recruited to the post. The term ‘qualification’ in that rule relates to not only academic qualifications but also other qualifications laid down in the recruitment rules. Rule 23 A has to be read along with the relevant rules of recruitment to a particular post. Rule 23 A protects only that class of temporary servants who, due to the exigencies of the service, cannot be made permanent though they have qualified themselves for being so made. It is this class of temporary servants, who, due to no fault of theirs and who otherwise would have been made permanent, are equated with permanent servants and whose services can be terminated in the same manner as those of the permanent servants. Now, the respondent fulfilled the academic qualifications but he cannot be said to have been qualified unless he has been selected in accordance with the relevant service rules. Under the rules, the respondent could not be made permanent unless he was recruited in the manner provided by the rules and therefore, he is not entitled to the protection of Rule 23 A.