ORDER :

1. The matter pertains to a challenge to the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 5 in the post of Assistant Professor-II (Scientist-C/Equivalent) (‘Assistant Professor’) in Plasma Physics in the Institute of Advanced Study in Science and Technology (‘Institute’).

2. It is the case of the petitioner that apart from the respondent No. 5's academic career being inferior to her, the said respondent No. 5 is not even eligible as per the advertisement in question. The petitioner has accordingly prayed for interference with the said selection and appointment with a further prayer for considering her case in accordance with law.

3. To appreciate the issue involved, the facts of the case are required to be narrated in brief.

4. An advertisement was issued on 11.8.2017 for different posts, including the aforesaid post of Assistant Professor. Since the foundation of the case is on the eligibility criterion, it would be convenient if the eligibility criterion is quoted hereunder which is as follows:

“4. Name of the post: Assistant Professor-II (Scientist C/Equivalent) in Plasma Physics (One position, Regular)

Pay: PB Rs. 15,600-Rs. 39,800 GP Rs. 6,600 p.m.

Qualification and Experience:

Essential: Ph.D. in Plasma Physics with consistently good academic record with at least four years of post-doctoral research experience (emphasis given) in the relevant fields in reputed Govt. R&D institution or reputed private R&D organization in Numerical/ Computational work in, the plasma waves, instabilities and sheath phenomenon. Proven record of high quality independent research (impact factor publications).

Experience of supervising research work of students.”

5. The thrust of the argument is that a candidate should be Ph.D. in Plasma Physics with consistent good academic record with “at least four years of post-doctoral research experience” in the relevant field.

6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that records would reveal that the respondent No. 5, who has been subsequently selected for appointment, does not meet the eligibility criteria of having at least four years of postdoctoral research experience in the relevant field.

7. I have heard Shri H.K. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner whereas the Union of India-respondent No. 1 is represented by Ms. A. Gayan, learned Central Government counsel (CGC). I have also heard Shri D Gogoi, learned counsel for the Institute-respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as well Shri S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5.

8. Shri Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing the attention of this court to the advertisement dated 11.8.2017 submits that the last date of submission of application was 30.9.2017 and as indicated above, one of the essential criterion is to have a Ph.D. Degree in Plasma Physics with at least four years of post-doctoral research experience in the relevant field. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plain meaning of the essential criterion indicated above is that the post-doctoral research experience has to be for a period after conferring acquiring the Ph.D. Degree. By drawing the attention of this court to the application submitted by the respondent No. 5, more particularly, those containing the academic qualifications, Shri Mahanta, learned counsel has submitted that it is the admitted fact that the respondent No. 5 had acquired the Ph.D. Degree in the year 2014 and if the same” is taken into consideration, he does not fulfil the requirement of having four years of post-doctoral research experience before submission of the’ application in response to the advertisement dated 11.8.2017. If the respondent No. 5 is not eligible in terms of the advertisement in question, the very fact of short listing him for facing further procedure was itself illegal and erroneous which requires a corrective measures from this court in exercise of powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from the principal argume