Is the action taken by public service commission is valid?

I. The Qualification Criteria Specified for the said post in the notification is as A candidate should possess the academic qualifications and experience including practical experience prescribed, if any, for the post on the date of the notification for direct recruitment issued by the concerned recruiting agency. II. For this Post the required “Educational Qualification” Specified in the notification is as follows: a. Must possess 1st Class Master Degree in Commerce (Academic qualification). b. Type writing Higher Grade in English and Shorthand Higher Grade in English conducted by State Board of Technical Education and Training (Technical qualification). Note: The word must is not used for technical qualification, the intention of law maker is different with respect to technical qualification. For Other Posts in the technical education service rules and in Other Special Service Rules where more than one educational qualification is specified for the post of direct recruitment, there the word either ‘must’ or ‘should’ are used. All the other state for the similar post lecturer in Commercial practice , Lecturer in modern office practice to teach Commerce, Typewriting and shorthand subjects prescribes academic qualification only by complying AICTE norms. But the selection authority APPSC contends that the technical qualification also mandatory, if their view is valid then it’s violates the AICTE norms and it also effects the candidates equality of opportunity in public employment as per Article 16 , hence it becomes unconstitutional and rejection of such candidates who fulfils the qualification as per AICTE norms becomes illegal as held in the case State of Tamil Nadu vs ADHIYAMAN EDUCATIONAL & RESEARCH INSTITUTE dated 24.03.1995 This is the situation where the sufficient candidates with shorthand English higher are not available only the candidates with lower grade are available. Available candidates are substantially fulfils prescribed qualification. The State Legislature has a right but not has the exclusive right to make the law relating to Technical Education Service, hence the Law APTES Rules made by the state legislature under proviso to article 309 for the entry 41 of List II is subject to the law made by parliament. Judicial judgements reference for similar cases 1. State of Tamil Nadu vs ADHIYAMAN EDUCATIONAL & RESEARCH INSTITUTE dated 24.03.1995 2. Dr. B. Ajith kumar vs The State of Kerala dated 06.10.2009 3. P.Jothiswaran vs The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, Government of Tamil Nadu dated 06.07.2017. 4. M. Chellakrishnavi vs The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, Government of Tamil Nadu dated 13.06.2018. Is the candidates who possess the prescribed qualification as per aicte are eligible? Is the rejection of such candidates is valid?