I.A. Ansari, J.

1. The judgment and order dated 30.5.1997, passed in Civil Rule Nos. 2/1989 and 26/1989, dismissing the two writ petitions is under challenge in the present appeal.

2. In a narrow compass, the facts, which are material for the purpose of disposal of this writ appeal may be stated as follows:-

The respondent No. 1, namely, Tripura University, published an advertisement on 30.8.1988, inviting, inter alia, application for appointment to the post of Deputy Librarian in the said University. Amongst others, the appellant, the respondent No. 4 and one Arabinda Chakravorty applied for appointment to the said post of Deputy Librarian. The Selection Board, eventually, selected the respondent No. 4 for appointment to the said post. Aggrieved by this appointment, the appellant and the said Arabinda Chakravorty instituted two writ petitions aforementioned. By the impugned judgment and order dated 30.5.1997, both the writ petitions were, as indicated hereinbefore, dismissed the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 2/89 namely, Sri Guru Prasad Chakraborty, has, now approached this Court with the present appeal. No appeal has, however, been preferred by the said Arabinda Chakravorty.

3. We have perused the materials on record including the advertisement, in question. We have heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. We have also heard Mr. P.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. P. Deb Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

4. A number of grounds were taken in one writ petitions challenging the appointment of the respondent No. 4. These grounds included the plea of the appellant that the respondent No. 4 did not possess essential qualifications prescribed under the said advertisement inasmuch as the said advertisement prescribed Master's Degree in Library Science as an essential qualifications for appointment to the said post, whereas, while the appellant had requisite qualification and also experience, the respondent No. 4 neither had requisite academic qualification nor did he have the requisite experience and he could not have, therefore, been allowed to participate in the selection process, which ensued the said advertisement, nor could he have been selected and/or appointed as Deputy Librarian. The respondents controverted this plea by asserting that though the respondent No. 4 did not have Master's Degree in Library Science, he did possess equivalent academic qualification inasmuch as he holds the certificate of Associateship of the Documentation Research and Training Centre, Bangalore, of the Indian Statistical Institute, which is recognised by the Government of India as equivalent to Master's Degree in Library Science of an Indian University for the purpose of recruitment and employment to the post in which the minimum qualification for recruitment is Master's Degree in Library Science and that the respondent No. 4 also had requisite experience for such selection and appointment.

5. The learned Single Judge agreed with the contention of the respondents that the respondent No. 4 possessed a degree, which was equivalent to Master's Degree in Library Science, and was, therefore, eligible under the said advertisement for selection and appointment to the said post. The learned Single Judge also opined to the effect that the respondent No. 4 had requisite experience in terms of the said advertisement.

6. At the time of hearing of the present appeal, Mr. Roy Barman has assailed the conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge that the respondent No. 4 possessed, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the essential qualifications, both academic as well as experience, as had been prescribed under the said advertisement. As no other ground for assailing the impugned judgment has been raised before us, at the time of hearing of the present appeal, we keep ourselves confined only to the question