As per case facts, the Commission initiated recruitment for Draftsman/Cartographer posts across several departments. Due to varied service rules, the Commission sought clarification from departments on the interpretation of "concerned ... trade" and equivalent qualifications. The Urban Development Department clarified that "concerned trade" included Civil Engineering and Architectural Assistant. A writ petition challenged this, arguing it altered eligibility mid-selection and that "concerned trade" should only mean Draftsman, and that equivalence required an expert body. The Single Judge partly allowed the petition, restricting eligibility for the Urban Development Department to Draftsmanship only, leading to these appeals. The question arose whether the employer's clarification of "concerned trade" illegally changed eligibility rules mid-selection or if an expert body was necessary for such interpretations. Finally, the High Court held that the clarification was merely an exposition of an open-textured term, not an alteration of eligibility. It affirmed the employer's competence to interpret qualifications for the post without an expert body, as no arbitrariness was found. The High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Single Judge's judgment, and permitted the Commission to conclude the selection.