JUDGMENT :

N. Kotiswar Singh, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.C. Borbora, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 3157 of 2017, W.P.(C) No. 3158 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No. 6719 of 2018. Also heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in W.P.(C) No. 3157 of 2017, W.P.(C) No. 3158 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No. 6719 of 2018; Mr. P.D. Nair, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 in 3157 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No. 6719 of 2018; Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Mohammad, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in 3158 of 2017.

These three petitions, W.P.(C) No. 3157 of 2017, W.P.(C) No. 3158 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No. 6719 of 2018 have been tagged together considering the similarities of the issues involved, though these writ petitions relate to different posts under the same organization.

2. In W.P.(C) No. 3157/2017, the petitioner, who was already working as a Technical Officer on contractual basis in the Assam Energy Development Agency (AEDA) and a candidate for appointment to the post of Scientific Officer, which was advertised by the Assam Energy Development Agency on 26.10.2016, challenged the appointment of the respondent No. 5 to the said post of Scientific Officer, on various, inter alia, grounds, that no written test was held and also the respondent No. 6 did not have the requisite qualification and the merit list was not published. The scope of challenge has been further enlarged in W.P.(C) No. 6719/2018 filed by the same petitioner, after the petitioner came to know of the details of the marks obtained by the candidates and merit list, on the basis of an affidavit filed by the said respondent No. 5 in a miscellaneous application, LA. No. 3512 of 2017.

3. An unreserved post of Scientific Officer was advertised on 26.10.2016. The education qualification and experience prescribed for the said post were as follows:

"(i) Bachelor of Engineering/Technology in Electrical/Electronics/Mechanical with uniform and excellent academic career.

(ii) At least 5 (five) years work experience in the field of Renewable Energy in any Govt./Semi Govt/Public undertaking/Organisations with special reference to Solar Photovoltaic Systems application and design.

(iii) Candidates with aptitude in computer database and the project handling and the management will be preferred."

4. The other terms and conditions laid down in the said advertisement include that the short listed candidates will only be called for written test and the date of written test would be intimated individually and also through the official website, w.w.w.assam renewable.org.

It was further mentioned that the venue and time for the written test, practical test and oral interview will be notified by the authority in due course.

It was also mentioned that the list of the selected candidates will be published in the AEDA's website.

5. According to the petitioner the recruitment process was, however, conducted by not adhering to the aforesaid terms mentioned in advertisement and the selection committee considered candidates who did not possess the eligibility qualification and experience mentioned in the advertisement.

6. It has been also stated that contrary to the advertisement stipulating that written test will be held, no such written test was held but only oral test was held.

It had been stated that had the written test been held, the petitioner could have performed well in the written test, which could have materially affected the result of the recruitment process. It was the expectation of the candidates that the overall assessment for suitability of candidates would be made on the basis of written test and interview. However, in the present case, the selection was made purely on the basis of interview, though it was not so notified in the advertisement. Thus, according to the petitioner, the recruitment process, undertaken by not adhering to the specific stipulation in the advertisement that written test wo