ORDER

1. Pleadings are complete. Since the parties agreed to argue the matter finally, therefore, looking to the issue involved, it is finally heard.

2. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the communication dated 24.4.2023 (Annexure-P/1) made to the Government Advocate assigning reason as to why the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected.

3. As per facts of the case, the petitioner had participated in the selection process of departmental candidate for the post of Senior Nursing Officer in pursuance of the advertisement dated 25.8.2022 (Annexure-P/3), but when she was not considered, she filed a petition i.e. W.P. No.8420 of 2023 which was decided vide order dated 19.4.2023 directing the authority to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order thereof. In response to the same, a communication was made to the Government Advocate assigning reason as to why the candidature of the petitioner was not considered. Being dissatisfied with the reason assigned in the said communication, the petitioner filed this petition pointing out that there is no such requirement prescribed in the advertisement issued by the respondents that the experience of five years to the post of Staff Paricharika or equivalent post in 13 Government Medical Colleges and that condition is shown in the order/communication rejecting the representation of the petitioner, which is impugned in this petition. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the respondents have changed the game of rule after its commencement and as such, it is illegal and petitioner's candidature had to be accepted because she has sufficient experience on the post of Staff Paricharika not of 13 Government Medical Colleges, but otherwise and she has also a live registration of Mahakaushal Nursing Council. Therefore, her experience has to be accepted by the respondents and decision rejecting her candidature deserves to be set aside and promotion to the post of Senior Nursing Officer be granted to the petitioner.

4. The respondents have filed their reply stating therein that in the advertisement itself, in the column of minimum academic qualification, it was one of the required qualifications with five years experience to the M.Sc. (Nursing), Staff Paricharika or on equivalent post five years service experience and registration in Mahakaushal Nursing Council. As per the respondents, the condition was very much there in the advertisement showing required experience of five years on the post which is also shown in the advertisement itself.

5. Shri Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner submits that it does not specify the experience of a Government Medical College or especially the 13 Medical Colleges for which posts were advertised, is required qualification. He submits that the advertisement talks about the experience and, therefore, if the petitioner having experience not of Government Medical College but of some other College then that should have been taken note of and her candidature could not have been rejected by the authority only on this count.

6. On the other hand, Shri Kekre, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State submits that it is not a direct recruitment but it is a case of promotion of departmental candidates. In the advertisement, the clause of experience is specified, meaning thereby the experience on the post on which candidate has performed duties must be of a Government Medical College and if duty has been performed on the said post in some other Private Institution or otherwise, that should not have been taken note of. According to him, had it been a case of direct recruitment then the petitioner's candidature would have been considered but for a departmental candidate and promotion to the post of Senior Nursing Officer, experience of said College for which posts were advertised is necessary. According to Shri Kekre, there is no ambiguity in the advertisement