In these two writ petitions, the petitioner seeks a direction to be issued to the respondents not to give effect to the result of interview held on 12.11.1993 in respect of the post of Lecturer in Sociology for the Department of Higher and Technical Education and not to issue any letter of appointment pursuant to the interview held on the aforesaid date. This direction is sought lot in Civil Rule No. 112 (K) of 1993. 2. The petitioner also assails in Civil Rule No. 19 (K.) 94 the advertise­ment No. 3/92-93 dated 6.11.92 published by the Nagaland Public Service Commission under the signature of Secretary Public Service Commission on the ground that the advertisement is not in accordance with the necessary qualifications prescribed for appointment as Lecturers in Universities and Colleges in terms of the statutory Rules made in this regard by the University Grants Commission. In other words, the petitioner assails the said advertisement on the ground that this advertisement does not conform to the statutory pre­scription as regards educational qualifications for appointment as Lecturer in University or College. In the interview held on 12.11.93, the third respondent in this Civil Rule was selected for appointment as Lecturer in Sociology in the Department of Higher and Technical Education. 3. The petitioner is an MA in Sociology. In response to the advertisement dated 6.11.92 aforesaid, the petitioner also applied for the post of Lecturer in Sociology. As regards the petitioner's academic career, it may be stated that she passed the High School Leaving Certificate Examination in J982 in the 1st Division and Pre-University Arts in the year 1984 in 1st Division. She also passed B \ in 1986 in Second Division. She also got Degree in Hons. Examination (BA)in 19^9 in Sociology in the Second Division. She did MA in Sociology and passed the Final Examinations in 1992 in the Second Division. 4. The petitioner averts that she passed the test for Junior Research Fellowship Award held on 22.12.1991. The said test was conducted by the University Grants Commission. In this connection a letter was addressed to the petitioner on 18th February, 1993 by the Deputy Secretary, University Grants Commission. Para 2 of the letter states that the petitioner is now eligible for being considered by the Universities for the Award of Junior Research Fellowship already allocated to them under various schemes of the Commission. In this connection a letter was addressed to the petitioner on 18th February, 1993 by the Deputy Secretary, University Grants Commission. Para 2 of the letter states that the petitioner is now eligible for being considered by the Universities for the Award of Junior Research Fellowship already allocated to them under various schemes of the Commission. Para 4 of this letter states as under : "You are also simultaneously declared eligible for being considered by the Universities/Colleges for the post of Lecturer in accordance with the rules and regulations laid down for the purpose. You may apply to the Universities/Colleges in response to their advertisement for the post of Lecturer." Letter dated 13 July, 199/ was addressed to North Eastern Hill University by the Under Secretary, University Grants Commission as regards minimum qualifications prescribed for appointment of Lecturers, Readers and Professors in subjects other than fine arts, management, engineering and technology in Universities and Colleges. It is indicated in this letter that it was written by way of clarification inasmuch as the Commission had received representations from individuals as well as from various institutions seeking clarification in respect of exemption from UGC/CSIR-JRF NET eligibility test in respect of candidates who have M. Phil/Ph.D. degree as conveyed in the Commission's letters No. F. 4-12/86 (NET; dated 30.1.1990, 14.5.1990 and 25.1.1991. Relevant for the purpose of the case in hand are paras 2 and 3 of this letter which may be extracted : "The Commission has examined the matter carefully and decided that there is no relaxation from the requirements of having 55% marks at the Master's degree level. Exemption from passing the Lecturer Eligibility Test is only applicable to those candidates who would have done Ph.D upto December, 1992 or M. Phil upto March, 1991, provided such candidates have secured 55% marks at the Master's level. The Commission also decided that all Universities/Deemed Univer­sities and Colleges be impressed upon to follow the UGC Regulations as notified vide this office letter No. F.1-11-/97 (CPP) dated 28th October, 1991 for the purpose of appointment of Professors, Readers and Lecturers, failing which serious, legal complications may arise." 5. It is averred that the petitioner fulfills the qualifications laid down under the Regulations of the University Grant Commission. It is averred that the petitioner fulfills the qualifications laid down under the Regulations of the University Grant Commission. The petitioner further averrs that in response to the said advertisement for the post of Lecturer in Sociology mentioned at Item No. 1 (h) of the advertisement, submitted her application before the closing date alongwith all the required testimonials. The respondent No. 1 wrote a .letter to the petitioner on 13.10.93 asking the petitioner to appear in an interview which was fixed on 12.11.93 at Kohima. Admit Card was duly issued to the petitioner. The petitioner, on receipt of the call letter, rushed to Kohima from Shillong and reported to the office of the Commission at 9.30 AM on 12.11.93. Roll number allotted to the petitioner in terms of the Admit Card was 17 and the name of the petitioner was at serial 1 on the list of candidates for the said interview. However, it is averred that she was not given interview. She waited the whole day at the office of the Commission. After all the other candidates were interviewed an officer of the Commission informed her that the Chairman had refused to interview the petitioner and that also without assigning any reason. The petitioner therefore contends that the refusal to interview her is an act of high-handedness and also arbitrary and biased. 6. Civil Rule 112 (K) 1993 was moved before this Court on 16.11.93. On that day the following order was passed : "No letter of appointment shall be issued in favour of any of the inter­viewed candidate against the post of Lecturer in the Department of Sociology for which interview was held on 12.H.93 consequent upon advertisement dated 6th November, 1992. This interim order shall be in force till 23rd November, 1993." It may be stated that the interim order continues. The petitioner asserts that the third respondent does not possess requisite qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer. 7. The petitioner further averrs that the Commission issued a press note on } 5.11.1993 announcing the result of the interviews by showing the name of the third respondent Shri Longtichang Tsakdir against the post of Lecturer in Sociology. The petitioner averrs that this method of announcement of the result of interview in respect of the Gazetted Officer is a departure from any past practice. The petitioner averrs that this method of announcement of the result of interview in respect of the Gazetted Officer is a departure from any past practice. In fact the contention of the petitioner is that such departure was made in an unholy haste to help the cause of the third respondent and not for any bonafide reason. According to the petitioner it was ascertained from the AIR Kohima that the press note in question had not been received till the evening of 16.11.1993 and therefore the announcement of the result in fact had not been made before the evening of 16,11.1993. It is also averred that interview was held on 12.11.1993. That was a Friday, November 13 and 14 were holidays. As such it is averred that press note dated 15.11.1993 was issued just to beat the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers me to instruction issued by the Governor regarding direct recruitment through Nagaland Public Service Commission that in case of Gazetted posts it is not required to issue any press communique but only Gazette notification should be issued by the Government on appointment. The learned counsel relies on clause 9(a) of the said instruction which runs as under : "9. (a) When recruitment is made by a competitive examination : (i) As soon as the results are ready, the Commission will send to the Govern­ment the names of all successful candidates in order of merit as disclosed by the examination. A few more names might be added, if necessary, so as to make the total number of names the nearest multiple of ten. (iii) A candidate on payment of a fee of Rs. 15/- shall be supplied on his application to the Secretary, Public Service Commission with a copy of the detailed marks sheet obtained by him or any other candidates. {iii) In the case of non-gazetted appointments when the appointing authority has decided the names of the candidates to be appointed will issue a press communique announcing the names of the candidates approved for appointment. In the case of Gazetted posts, only Gazette notification should be issued when the appointment is actually made." 8. Affidavit filed on behalf of respondent 1 states that there is a difference in the mark sheet submitted with the application on 16.12.92 and the mark sheet filed in the writ petition is dated 7.1.93. In the case of Gazetted posts, only Gazette notification should be issued when the appointment is actually made." 8. Affidavit filed on behalf of respondent 1 states that there is a difference in the mark sheet submitted with the application on 16.12.92 and the mark sheet filed in the writ petition is dated 7.1.93. As such it is contended that mark sheet dated 16.12.92 could not have been produced on 4.12.92 which was the date of application of the petitioner. It is also pointed out that in these two mark sheets the percentage shown in the earlier mark sheet is 56.69% and in the second mark sheet the percentage shown is 58.19%. According to the deponent, the petitioner did not furnish the proof of her having passed MA Examination in Sociology with at least 55% marks alongwith her application on 4.12.92 and before 8.12.92 which was the last date for submission of application. 9. An additional affidavit was also filed on behalf of respondent 1 on 18.1.94. It is denied in this affidavit that the press note was issued after the order of stay was issued by this Court. The petitioner also has filed an affidavit in reply. Para 3 of the affidavit states that mark sheet relating to her M.A. Examination was issued by NEHU on 16.12 92 and it was received by the Sociology Department on 19.12.92. The petitioner collected the same on 19.12.92. It is stated that the said mark sheet was submitted by the petitioner through one K.IC Biswas, SDO, NEZCC to the office of the Commission on 6.2.1993 and it was duly received by the office of the NPSC and the receipt was duly entered in the receipt register. It is also averred that under certain conditions a candidate is allowed to have a betterment chance to improve his/ her performance and accordingly the petitioner was allowed one chance in two papsrs in the first and second semesters. After she availed of the said chance the petitioner got 683 as total marks of semester examination and 167 marks on account of 2nd semester examination and consequently the grant total of the marks increased from 907 to 931 with corresponding increase in the percentage from 56.69% to 58.19%. After she availed of the said chance the petitioner got 683 as total marks of semester examination and 167 marks on account of 2nd semester examination and consequently the grant total of the marks increased from 907 to 931 with corresponding increase in the percentage from 56.69% to 58.19%. As regards the difference of marks shown in two different mark sheets as stated in the Commission's affidavit, the petitioner averrs in the reply affidavit that the mark sheet dated 7.1.93 reflects the consolidated results of the MA Examination which was declared on 7.1.93. It is further averred that as per norms of the University, in order to obtain the consolidated mark sheet, the petitioner had to surrender the original mark sheet dated 16.12.92 and the petitioner collected a consolidated mark sheet only in March, 1993. An affidavit sworn by Shri Biswas has been filed alongwith this reply affidavit stating that the mark sheet of the petitioner was carried to Kohima on 6.2.1993 and it was submitted to one Assangla who is the Dealing Assistant in the office of the Nagaland Public Service Commis­sion. The petitioner further averrs in para 11 of the reply affidavit that the selection made by the Commission in terms of the advertisement in question is illegal and in violation of Univesity Grants Commission (qualifications required of a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of a University and institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991 which are statutory rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause C of sub-section (1) of section 29 read with section 14 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Regulation 2 is as follows : "No person shall be appointed to a teaching post in a University or in any of institutions including constitutent of affiliated colleges recognised under clause (b) of section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or institution deemed to be a University under section 3 of the said Act in a subject if he does not fulfil the requirements as to the qualifica­tions for the appropriate subject provided in Schedule 1. Item (2) B (a) of Schedule 1 which provides the qualification of Lecturers runs as follows : (a) Arts, Sciences, Social Science, Commerce Education, Physical Education, Foreign Languages and Law. Item (2) B (a) of Schedule 1 which provides the qualification of Lecturers runs as follows : (a) Arts, Sciences, Social Science, Commerce Education, Physical Education, Foreign Languages and Law. Good academic record with at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade at Master's degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University. Candidates besides fulfilling the above qualifications should have cleared the eligibility test for Lecturers conducted by UGC, CSIR of similar test accredited by the UGC." 10. The additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission still controverts the receipt of the mark sheet of the petitioner from Shri Biswas. Even otherwise it is averred that the Dealing Assistant of the office has no authority to receive mark sheet two months after the last date prescribed for receipt of application form. It is further averred that even if it were true that it was submitted to the Dealing Assistant it would not validate the candidature of the petitioner inasmuch as the submission of the mark sheet belatedly would not cure the legal infirmity that on the last date of submission of application ie 8.12.92, the petitioner had not passed her M.A. Examination. It is also averred in the additional affidavit that the Commission is guided by the qualifications prescribed by the Administrative Department and accordin­gly advertisements are issued. It is further averred that the Commission is not concerned with UGC Rules on the subject. According to the deponent it is the Education Department, Govt. of Nagaland which should know what are the essential qualifications as per recruitment rules of Govt. of Nagaland. 11. The advertisement dated 6th November, 1992 states that the posts are Class I Gazetted in the Higher Education Service in the Department of Higher and Technical Education. Qualification prescribed in terms of the advertisement is as follows : "Maker's Degree from a recognised University in the relevant subject with at least 55% marks or its equivalent grade with good academic record. Candidates possessing M.Phil or Ph.D Degree will be given preference and will be eligible one and three annual increments in advance respectively." The qualification stated in the advertisement and the qualification prescribed under UGC Regulations do not tally. In other words the qualification pres­cribed in the advertisement falls short of the qualification prescribed under the UGC Regulations stated earlier. Candidates possessing M.Phil or Ph.D Degree will be given preference and will be eligible one and three annual increments in advance respectively." The qualification stated in the advertisement and the qualification prescribed under UGC Regulations do not tally. In other words the qualification pres­cribed in the advertisement falls short of the qualification prescribed under the UGC Regulations stated earlier. As mentioned above the stand of the respondents is that the State Govt. would go by the recruitment rules framed by the Education Department. In fact this stand is taken in para 4 of the Affidavit filed an behalf of respondents 1 and 2. However, at the time of hearing, learned Senior Govt. Advocate states that there are no recruitment rules framed by the Education Department in this regard. In this view of the matter the statement made in para 4 of the Govt. affidavit is not correct. 12. The third respondent Shri Longtichang Tsukdir has not filed any affi­davit nor has he entered appearance and made submission in the present case. 13. On careful perusal of all the documents filed on behalf of the parties and after hearing learned counsel of the parties, it is now clear that on 4.12.92 when the petitioner submitted application, she had not passed M.A. Examina­tions. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Govt. Advocate that in her own hand the petitioner had stated so in the application form in the following manner : "Result not declared." In view of this, learned Senior Govt. Advocate submits that the application was inavlid ab initio. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had concealed certain facts at the time of making the application. It is also clear that the petitioner had submitted relevant mark sheet before the date of interview. What seems also very clear now is that despite the statement made in the application that the petitioner was awaiting result when she made application on 4.12.92, she was given call letter and also Admit Card. What is also clear in the present case that although the last date for submission of application was 8.12.92 interview took place only on 12.11.1993. In other-words there was a time gap of one year between the last date of submission of application and the date of interview. What is also clear in the present case that although the last date for submission of application was 8.12.92 interview took place only on 12.11.1993. In other-words there was a time gap of one year between the last date of submission of application and the date of interview. During this one whole year if there was any defect in the application of the petitioner such defect ought to have been pointed out or the petitioner ought to have been informed that in view of the fact that on the date she made the application she had not passed MA Examinations, she would stand disqualified for the interview. Further the Commission simply ought not to have issued the call letter at all. The fact of the matter appears to be that after the result was announced on 16.12.1992 the petitioner submitted the mark sheet and the Commission obviously processed the application on the basis of documents furnished by the petitioner. Mr. Jamir submits that the petitioner was not entitled to make application on 4.12.92 as on that date she had not passed MA Examinations. In view of this according to Mr. Jamir, the petitioner did not come before the Commission with clean hands. It appears the Commission cannot accuse the petitioner that she did not come before the Commission with clean hands. After all she had clearly written in her own hand that the result was not declared yet when she submitted the application. In spite of such statement application was accepted by the Commission. In the facts and circumstances of such a situation the petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the Commission to interview her on 12.11.93. The submission of the petitioner is that without assigning any reason she could not have been refused flatly to interview on the appoin­ted date inasmuch as she was holding a validly issued Admit Card for the said interview. It is further submitted that if at all her candidature was to be declared disqualified, she ought to have been confronted with the discrepancies of the mark sheet now sought to be made out in the Govt. affidavit and also as regards the date of submission of her application inasmuch as in such an event she could have got an opportunity of explaining and saying what she wished to say at that time. affidavit and also as regards the date of submission of her application inasmuch as in such an event she could have got an opportunity of explaining and saying what she wished to say at that time. It is further submitted that since the application of the petitioner was accepted in spite of statement that on 4.12.92 when she submitted the application result had not been declared and since the applica­tion was processed on the basis of testimonials supplied by the petitioner culminating in the issuance of call letter and Admit Card, the Commission must be deemed to have accepted the application as validly made. In such a situation I am inclined to say that the petitioner ought to have been interviewed. After all the interview took place one year after the last date of submission of the application. 14. Regarding the contention made on behalf of the petitioner that the (JGC Regulations regarding prescriptions of educational qualifications are statutory rule and are mandatory in the matter of selection and appointment of Lecturers, the Govt. affidavit is completely silent. It is, however, submitted by the learned Senior Govt. Advocate that no rules have been framed by Education Department. He further submits that UGC Rules also have not been adopted by the Govt. so far. He submits that the petitioner did not have the qualification prescribed in the advertisement. Hence when she made the application she was not an eligible person. The point for my consideration is whether the State is authorised to select and appoint Lecturers who do not fulfil the qualifications prescribed under the UGC Regulations in this regard. Learned Senior Govt. Advocate states that the Govt. actively considering to adopt UGC Rules. According to him there is no option for the Govt. but sooner 01 later it will have to adopt the UGC Rules. 15. It appears the State should go by the statutory rules which have been made with an eye to the changing scenario of rapid advancement of education in the country, especially in the field of higher learning. It appears to me that it is not open to the State Govt. to prescribe any qualification it likes without conforming to the qualifications prescribed by UGC Regulation in the matter of selection and appointment of Lecturers in the field of higher learning. It appears to me that it is not open to the State Govt. to prescribe any qualification it likes without conforming to the qualifications prescribed by UGC Regulation in the matter of selection and appointment of Lecturers in the field of higher learning. It is only reasonable to strictly adhere to the qualifications prescribed by UGC in the matter of appointment of Lecturers inasmuch as we need to have the best available talents to cater to the needs of education, especially in a far flung area like the State of Nagaland. I am also of the view that the qualification prescribed in the advertisement in question is not based on any rule made by the State nor is it based on any executive order in this regard. At the same time when UGC has clearly spelled out the educational qualifications which are considered necessary in the matter of selection and appointment of Lecturers, it is not open to the State to take any other course. 16. In the result, in the premises aforesaid, this petition is allowed. The selection made in respect of the third respondent for appointment as Lecturer in Sociology is quashed. I also hold that the qualification prescribed in the advertisement dated 6th November, 1992 does not conform to the qualifica­tions prescribed under the UGC Regulations. I also hold that UGC Regula­tions regarding the qualifications would hold the field in the matter of selection and appointment of Lecturers. The post of Lecturer in Sociology shall now be advertised inviting applications from all eligible persons and selection be made on merit, making it clear that such advertisement shall conform to the qualifications prescribed in this behalf under UGC Regula­tion. Advertisement shall be made within a month from the date of receipt of this order and the entire process of selection and appointment shall be completed at the earliest and at any rate not later than three months from the date of receipt of this order. I pass no order as to costs.