Adherence to statutory recruitment criteria is essential, and appointments made contrary to prescribed experience requirements are deemed illegal.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed by two petitioners with the following prayers:

"The Petitioner therefore prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(a) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction for quashing and setting aside of the Result Notice dated 24.12.2020 qua the candidates to have been illegally appointed for the post of Assistant Director (Technical) as published by the Respondent No.1, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India.

(b) Direct the Respondent No.1 to appoint candidates as per the Appointment Recruitment Notice No. DR-02/2019 dated 26.03.2019;

(c) To remove all the names of all the contractual employees of FSSAI, working as Technical Officer at pay Level 7 and level 8 from the list of candidates for the post of Assistant Director (Technical);

(d) Pass such other or further orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice;

(e) costs."

2. In substance, the petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the result notice dated December 24, 2020 whereby the respondents have selected/appointed 13 persons including the respondent Nos.3 to 12 to the post of Assistant Director (Technical). The petitioners have also challenged the appointment of the respondent Nos.13 to 17 as Assistant Director (Technical). The petitioner No.1 has done Doctorate in Food Technology from New Zealand and belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The respondent No.1 had issued an advertisement for filling up of various posts including 13 posts of Assistant Director (Technical). The petitioner No.1 being eligible for the said post, had also applied as an outside direct candidate. Similarly, the petitioner No.2 meeting the eligibility conditions, who belongs to OBC category, had also applied for the post of Assistant Director (Technical). The respondent Nos.3 to 12 were working as a Technical Officers on contract basis with the respondent No.1. According to the petitioners, the consolidated pay of the said respondent Nos.3 to 12 is aligned with pay level 7 or below.

3. In terms of the advertisement, selection process for the post of Assistant Director (Technical) was through a Computer-Based Test (`CBT' for short) followed by written examination and interview. The CBT was held on July 24, 2019. Similarly, the written examination was held on October 10, 2020. A communication notice was published on November 10, 2020 by the respondent No.1 publishing provisionally list of successful candidates who were to be called for interview. The respondent No.1 conducted interview for 75 candidates. The result for the same was published on December 24, 2020, wherein the names of respondent Nos.3 to 12 also features, and accordingly, they have been issued appointment letters to the post of Assistant Director (Technical).

4. It is the submission of Mr.Samrat Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioners that the advertisement issued by the respondent No.1 for the post of Assistant Director (Technical) contemplated under heading Note-1 that out of the total experience of five years sought for the post of Assistant Director (Technical), two years of experience should be in immediate lower pay level in central dearness allowance, which the respondent Nos.3 to 12 did not have.

5. This according to him, was due to the fact that the respondent Nos.3 to 12 being contractu