The challenge to an advertisement and the composition of a selection committee must be raised at the appropriate stage of the proceeding, and cannot be raised after participating in the selection process.

JUDGMENT :

Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J.

Heard Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. B. Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the Health Department, Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 being the Assam Public Service Commission and Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 6.

2. The appellant as well as the respondent No.6 were appointed as Medical Officer (Ayur) on the recommendation of the Assam Public Service Commission (in short APSC) vide notification dated 23.07.2004 of the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Health and Family Welfare Department.

3. An advertisement dated 20.06.2015 was issued by the APSC for filling up one post of lecturer in Roga Nidan Department, amongst others, in the Government Ayurvedic College and Hospital under the Health and Family Welfare (B) Department, Govt. of Assam. The eligibility condition for the post was as under:

"EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION : A (a) A degree in Ayurved from a University established by Law or a Statutory Board/Faculty/Examine Body of Indian Medicine or its equivalent as recognized under Indian Medicine Central Council (IMCC) Act, 1970,

(b) A post Graduate qualification in the subject/specialty concerned included in the schedule to Indian Medicine Central Council (IMCC) Act, 1970.

(c) Candidate should be registered in State Council of Indian Medicine, Assam"

4. Both the appellant as well as the respondent participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement of 20.06.2015. In the selection, the APSC on 08.06.2016 had recommended the respondent No.6 for the post of lecturer. The said recommendation of 08.06.2016 in favour of respondent No. 6 was assailed in the writ petition WP(C) 3643/2016. In the writ petition the appellant took the stand that when he was required to appear in the viva voce interview for the post, there was a requirement to bring the original copies of all the certificates alongwith the mark sheets that may be relevant for the candidature. Accordingly, the appellant took a stand that his teaching experience in the concerned department as well as his completion of the Master's degree in the subject were required to have been given necessary weightage.

5. On the other hand, in the writ petition, the respondent No. 6 took the stand that as the advertisement itself did not prescribe for any experience in teaching, therefore the requirement to have a teaching experience cannot be inferred merely because the candidates were required to bring all their academic and other certificates etc.

6. By the judgment dated 29.08.2019, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by arriving at its conclusion that the nature of the challenge made by the appellant did constitute a challenge to the advertisement itself. Therefore, having participated in the selection process and after being unsuccessful, the appellant now cannot go back and challenge the advertisement. The learned Single Judge also arrived at a conclusion that the contention of appellant that his certificate pertaining to teaching experience was not considered and the respondent No. 6 was appointed on some extraneous reason was unacceptable.

7. Against the judgment dated 29.08.2019, the intra court appeal has been preferred. Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant raises the following contention:-

(a) The provision of Clause 5.1.5 of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010, (in short UGC Regulation of 2010) which provides for the composition of the selection committee for the post of Assistant Professor in Colleges including Private Colleges had not been followed.

(b) The selection committee to which the appellant and the respondent No.6 were subjected comprised of one Mr. Rakesh Paul and another subject expert. Although the requirement o