The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Public Service Commission does not possess the power to add or modify rules and conditions beyond its authority as provided by the Constitution.

H.N. Sarma, J.

1. Challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 9.1.2008 passed analogously in WP (C) No. 414/2005 and WP (C) No. 277/2006, the appellant, namely, Tripura Public Service Commission, has filed these two writ appeals and the same are heard analogously as prayed for by learned Counsel for the appellant.

2. We have heard Mr. S. Deb, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Datta, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Talapatra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Banerjee for the respondents/writ petitioners, both the appeals.

3. The broad facts involved in both the writ petitions out of which these two writ appeals arise are not in dispute. The facts to put short, are as follows. The Health Department in the State of Tripura being in requirement to appoint Lecturers in different branches of the Regional Institute of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology (for short 'RIPS AT'), Agartala, made a requisition to the Tripura Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission' for selection of suitable candidates for such appointment, in terms of the relevant service rule. The aforesaid requisition was for 8 (eight) numbers of Lecturer as contained in its letter dated 16.8.2004 issued by the Additional Secretary, Government of Tripura, Health and Family Welfare Department. On receipt of the said requisition, the Commission decided to go on with the recruitment process as per the existing statutory rules holding the field namely, Recruitment Rules for the Post of Lecturer in Pharmacy (Pharma-Chemistry) which lays down and prescribes the essential educational qualification to hold the post as 'M. Pharm (Pharm. Chemistry) failing which M. Pharma with two years teaching experience in Pharma Chemistry failing which B. Pharm with three years teaching experience in Pharma Chemistry.'

Pursuant to the aforesaid requisition an advertisement was made by the Commission in two local dailies on 1.2.2005. In the said advertisement clause with the heading instruction to the candidates was also inserted. As per Clause 5 of the said instruction it was provided that

Where a number of years of experience is prescribed as on item of Qualification, Experience would mean only experience gained in full time employment after acquiring minimum academic qualifications including Training, if any.

4. Pursuant to the said advertisement several candidates, including the writ petitioners, applied for the post. Both the petitioners are degree holder in Pharmacy and serving as part time Lecturers at RIPS AT, since 1.6.2000, having so appointed by the competent authority vide order dated 29.5.2000 initially for 6 months, but extended for twice till.

5. The commission submitted the applications of the candidates and having found that both the petitioners are only B. Pharm degree holder and are serving as part time Lecturers, their candidatures were rejected on the ground of non-fulfillment of the clause incorporated in the said advertisement interpreting 'experience' as experience gained in full time employment. According to the Commission, they were not found eligible to hold the post of Lecturer for want of essential educational qualification. Aggrieved by such decision of the commission, the petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petitions namely, WP (C) No. 414/05 and WP (C) No. 277/06.

6. The grievance of the petitioners are that the aforesaid criteria relating to the educational qualification, namely teaching experience would mean only experience gained in full time employment is not in the relevant statutory service rule and they inserted by the Commission on its own and the same not being a part of the Recruitment Rules, the Commission acted beyond its jurisdiction by inserting the said clause and they were illegally and unauthorisedly deprived of to participate in the selection process thereby adversely affecting their valuable rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitut