Nishitendu Chaudhury, J.

1. Judgment and order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.(C) 3464/2011 allowing the writ petition and setting aside the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Administrative Officer in the establishment of Deputy Commissioner of Dima Hasao district has been challenged in the present writ appeal. The writ petitioner is a Senior Administrative Assistant in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dima Hasao district. The case of the writ petitioner is that on 6/13th July, 2009, the Deputy Commissioner of Dima Hasao district issued an advertisement inviting applications in standard form from eligible candidates to fill up the vacant post of Administrative Officer in his office stating that applicants must have rendered at least 15 years of service in any D.C's establishment having work experience in different branches in general and must be a graduate from any recognized university. The advertisement contained a stipulation that applications should reach the Office of the Deputy Commissioner on or before 05.06.2009 together with a copy of treasury challan for Rs. 5/- for candidates under general category and Rs. 2.50/- for SC/ST candidates. Writ petitioner along with two others submitted their candidature, namely, one D.K. Deb and one A. Teron of the same office. The Deputy Commissioner thereafter by letter dated 13.07.2009 forwarded all the three applications along with all testimonials as well as A.C.Rs. upto date for consideration by the Selection Board. However, selection did not take place within next one year and a half. In the mean time on 21.02.2011, private respondent No. 4 (writ appellant herein) filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner with a request to forward his candidature to the Selection Board for consideration stating that as he was busy in pursuing a correspondence course. Although 19 months had elapsed after expiry of the last date stipulated in the advertisement, yet the Deputy Commissioner not only forwarded the application for consideration by the Selection Board but also recorded a comment certifying that respondent No. 4 has vast experience in almost all branches of the establishment. On 26.04.2011, the impugned notification selecting and appointing the private respondent as the Administrative Officer of the District Establishment of Dima Hasao district was issued. The writ petitioner immediately on 30.04.2011 submitted a representation registering her protest against the selection and appointment of the private respondent and prayed for re-consideration of the decision. The representation having failed to evoke any response, writ petitioner approached this court and not only prayed for setting aside the impugned notification dated 26.04.2011 as to selection and appointment of the private respondent but also made a prayer for appointing her as the Administrative Officer of the establishment in his place.

2. The official respondents as well as the private respondent No. 4 filed separate affidavits-in-opposition. The respondent No. 4 pleaded that although writ petitioner is an M.A. but she is much junior to him in the office. Of course, both of them were working as Upper Division Assistant. The respondent No. 4 claimed that stipulation as to last date of submitting application on 05.06.2009 was not mandatory or obligatory. Nowhere in the said advertisement it is stated that last date for submission of such application would not be extended. According to the respondent No. 4, the recruiting authorities had intention to give due weight to the seniority, merit and practical experience of having exposure to working in various branches of the Deputy Commissioner's establishment. It was not mandatory that personal interview must be held but it was proposed so in rare exceptional circumstances. The respondent No. 4 went further in stating that as per records writ petitioner herself filed application on 06.06.2009 after expiry of