Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J.

1. Heard Mr. N.N. Upadhayay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6, Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Higher Education Department and Mr. N.K. Neog, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Also Heard Mr. A. Chamuah, learned Standing Counsel for the UGC. The petitioner who has the qualification of PhD Degree in the year 2003 and serving as an Associate Professor in the B.H College at Howli, had participated in a selection process for the post of Principal of the said College as per the advertisement dated 25.8.11. The respondent No. 6, who is also an Associate Professor in the Tezpur University and has the required qualification, had also participated in the selection process pursuant to the said advertisement.

2. The advertisement prescribes the required qualification to be Master Degree with at least 55% marks from a recognized University, a PhD Degree in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline and be an Associate Professor/Professor with a total experience of 15 years of teaching experience/research administration in Universities/Colleges etc. The result of the selection finds place in the consolidated statement of marks awarded to the respective candidates by the Selection Committee. As per the consolidated statement of marks, the respondent No. 6 Dr. Bhusan Chandra Pathak had secured the total marks of 456, whereas the petitioner Dr. Ganga Dhar Das had secured a total marks of 368. The selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 on 17.01.2012 has been assailed in this writ petition. The respondent No. 6 accordingly joined his post on 23.01.2012.

3. Amongst others, the ground urged upon by Mr. N.N. Upadhayay, learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing of the writ petition is that as required by the advertisement of 25.08.2011, the respondent No. 6 did not have the required total experience of 15 years of teaching/research administration in Universities/Colleges etc. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said requirement is a mandatory requirement of the advertisement and therefore, in the event, the respondent No. 6 does not have the requirement of 15 years of teaching experience, he would be ineligible even to apply for the post.

4. In order to substantiate his claim, Mr. Upadhayay, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the UGC (Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education) Regulation, 2010, wherein Clause-10.0 provides for counting of past services for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS i.e. Career Advancement Scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Clause-10.1 thereof, which provides that previous regular service, whether national or international as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent should be counted for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS. The learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to Clause-10.1(f), which provides that the previous appointment should not be as a guest Lecturer for any duration or an ad-hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year duration. Relying upon the aforesaid provisions of Clause-10.0, it is die submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case, the respondent No. 6 had served in the Cotton College for the period from 01.10.1993 to 10.02.1999 against a non-sanctioned post and therefore, the past service of the respondent No. 6 for the said period should not be counted towards his total teaching experience as required in the advertisement.

5. Per-contra, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 6 refers to Clause-4.2.0 of the said Regulation of 2010, which inter-alia provides the required qualification for the post of a P