JUDGMENT :

Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is arising out of order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No. 26/2020, dismissing the writ petition.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant before this Court (Writ Petitioner), at the relevant point of time was serving as a Lower Division Clerk in the services of National School of Drama and had preferred the writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2019 passed by Respondent No.1, appointing Respondent No.2 on the post of Upper Division Clerk.

3. The facts further reveal that an advertisement was issued by the organization National School of Drama inviting applications for the post of Upper Division Clerk (Direct Recruitment) in the month of July, 2017 and the Appellant, Respondent No.2 as well as large number of candidates submitted their applications. A process of selection took place which was in three stages (a) objective test which was qualifying in nature (b) subjective test (c) skill test which was again qualifying in nature. The process of selection was concluded and the Appellant obtained 42 marks whereas the Respondent No.2 obtained 43 marks. The organization based upon the performance in the process of selection has issued an Appointment Letter dated 11.03.2019 appointing Respondent No.2 on the post of Upper Division Clerk and being aggrieved by the order of appointment of Respondent No.2 a writ petition was preferred before this Court. The Appellant before the learned Single Judge raised an issue that Respondent No.2 does not have continuous 5 years’ experience in a Government financed autonomous body/ Government Organization or an educational institute of repute and, therefore, as he was working as a contractual employee since 17.09.2008 with intermittent breaks, his experience could not have been taken into account while selecting him as Upper Division Clerk as 5 years’ experience was a mandatory condition as per the recruitment rules and as per the advertisement issued by Respondent No.1.

4. A reply was filed in the matter and it was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the Respondent No.2 was having 9 years’ experience at the time he submitted the application for the post of Upper Division Clerk and not the advertisement, nor the recruitment rules provide for experience as a regular employee and as Respondent No.2 was having 9 years’ experience, he has been rightly selected being a more meritorious candidate than the Appellant.

5. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Paragraphs 8 to 12 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge read as under:

“8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that in the light of the admitted position that respondent no.2 was found to be more meritorious vis-à-vis the petitioner, the only question which arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether the respondent no.2 possessed the necessary five years experience as envisaged under the advertisement.

9. In order to determine this short question, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant qualification and experience criteria as mentioned in the advertisement issued by the respondent no.1. The same reads as under:

“Qualification & Experience

Essential

1. Graduate of an Indian University or possessing equivalent qualification.

2. 5 years experience of work in a Government financed autonomous body or a Government organization or an educational institute of repute.”

10. The aforesaid clause which prescribes five years experience of work in a Government financed autonomous body or a Government organization or an educational institute of repute, does not anywhere specify that the experience is to be by way of uninterrupted and continuous service. It also does not state that experience acquired on an appointment which is cont