The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the essential and desirable qualifications specified in the advertisement and the rules governing the appointment process.

Heard Mr. M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C. Bhattacharyya, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2, Mr. C. Barua, learned standing counsel, APSC, appearing for the respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5 and Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.6. None has entered appearance for the respondent No.7, despite service of notice.

2. The respondent No.6 had filed an application for vacation, alteration and/or modification of the interim order dated 02.06.2017, which was registered as I.A. (C) No.2292/2017. The learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that instead of taking up of the application for vacation of the interim order, the writ petition can itself be taken up for disposal. Accordingly, as agreed to by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.

3. It is submitted by Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 that the application filed for vacating the interim order may be treated as the stand of the respondent No.6 to which Mr. M. Choudhury submits that the objection filed to the said application may also be taken into consideration.

4. The case of the writ petitioner is that she was appointed as Senior Scientific Assistant in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Assam by an order dated 19.03.1996 issued by the Inspector General of Police (Administration), Assam, on the basis of a selection process conducted by the Assam Public Service Commission (for short, “APSC”). She was promoted to the post of Junior Scientific Officer by an order dated 12.04.2006 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home (A) Department. Subsequently, she was promoted to the post of Scientific Officer by an order dated 20.06.2013. While serving as such, the petitioner responded to an advertisement being advertisement No.1/2017 dated 16.01.2017, which was published by the APSC in the 17th January, 2017 publication of the Assam Tribune, whereby applications were invited for the post of Deputy Director (Biology Division) in the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Assam, Jorhat under the Home & Political Department. The respondent No.6 had also submitted her application. A Notification dated 28.04.2017 was issued by the APSC indicating that the respondent No.6 as well as 30(thirty) other candidates did not submit any certificate with regard to research experience of 5(five) years along with their applications. The candidates were called for viva voce interview on 11.05.2017 and the respondent No.6 was also called for the said interview. The petitioner appeared in the interview on 11.05.2017, whereas the respondent No.6 appeared for the said interview on 15.05.2017. The interviews were held on 11.05.2017, 12.05.2017, 15.05.2017, 16.05.2017 and 17.05.2017. The interview was conducted by 2(two) Members from the Commission and 1(one) Expert Member.

5. It is pleaded in the writ petition that questions asked to the petitioner were not related to the field of forensic science. No emphasis was given to the petitioner’s certificates and her experience of more than 21 years. The process of interview was conducted as if it was for selection of an academic post, which was not the case. Above all, the respondent No.7, who was called as an Expert, did not have the credentials to be an Expert as the respondent No.7 had joined service as an Assistant Professor of Department of Zoology in Cotton College only on 17.11.2015 and his focus of research being Avian Photobiology etc. was not even remotely connected to the post in question.

6. It is pleaded that the respondent No.6 did not have the essential qualification as she is a post-graduate in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, which is not a qualification prescribed in the advertisement. It is pleaded that the respondent No