JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. In the above two cases the facts are similar and the questions of law to be decided are same and, therefore, I propose to dispose of them by this common judgment. 2. Certain posts of lecturers in the Regional Institute of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology (for short 'RIPSAT') for teaching Diploma Course fell vacant. The recruitment rules provide the educational and other qualification for direct recruits in Item No. 7 of the schedule (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). A person with B. Pharm. Degree and three years' teaching experience is also eligible for the post if no candidate with M. Pharm. with two years' teaching experience or M. Pharm. in the respective discipline are not available. The Tripura Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'), the first respondent herein, published an advertisement on 1.2.2005 specifically providing that the experience in question must be gained in full time employment. But the recruitment rules do not specifically say that the experience must be in full time employment. As the two petitioners herein are part-time teachers in RIPSAT for more than three years with degree of B. Pharm., their applications for regular appointment to the posts of lecturers in the respective discipline were rejected by the first respondent only because the experience gathered by them were not in full time employment. The only question which this Court is called upon to decide is whether the prescription 'experience in full time employment' is in conflict with the requirement of the rules and the same amounts to virtual amendment of the same with regard to the particular provision. 3. To examine the issue, the factual matrix may be briefly noticed first. Both the petitioners, Shri Partha Sarathi Dutta and Shri Rupak Majumder were initially appointed as part-time lecturers in RIPSAT and acquired teaching experience for more than three years before the advertisement in question was issued on 1.2.2005. The orders of their appointment clearly state that they would give maximum 50 lecturers per month. The petitioner Partha Sarathi Dutta was teaching in Pharmacology, Human Anatomy & Physiology and Hospital & Clinical Pharmacy in degree and diploma courses as certified by the Principal of the institute on 4.3.2005. The other petitioner Rupak Majumder similarly obtained a certificate from the Principal of the institute that he had taken classes in Pharm. Chemistry, Pharmaceutics and Pharmacognosy in degree and diploma courses. The other petitioner Rupak Majumder similarly obtained a certificate from the Principal of the institute that he had taken classes in Pharm. Chemistry, Pharmaceutics and Pharmacognosy in degree and diploma courses. While Partha Sarathi applied for the post of lecturer in Pharmacy (Pharmacology), Rupak applied for the post of lecturer in Pharmacy (Pharm. Chemistry), the respective disciplines/subjects in which they had admittedly gained experience for more than three years as part-time lecturers. The Commission rejected their petitions only on the ground that the experiences gathered by them were not in full time employment. By letter dated 5.9.2005 both the petitioners were informed by the Commission that their candidature could not be considered as their experience did not cover the prescribed qualification. Thus, they were not even allowed to sit in the competitive examination even though they had been taking classes in both diploma and degree courses in the respective disciplines. Aggrieved, they have approached this Court by instituting separate writ petitions. 4. The Commission being the main respondent its contention is to be looked into first. It has admitted specifically that the petitioners were not allowed to sit in the examination only for the reasons that the experience gathered by them for the required number of years was not in full time employment. Admitting that the recruitment rules for the said posts speak only of experience for a period not less than three years in case of a candidate having the degree of B. Pharm. only, the Commission contended that in the absence of any guideline in the rules, the Commission is at liberty to interpret the word 'experience' and require that the candidates must have experience in full time employment only. It is further contended that from the very inception the Commission has been interpreting the term 'experience' as 'full time experience' not as 'part-time experience' for short listing suitable candidates. The Commission being a constitutional body is fully empowered to interpret the provision of the rules in the way it has been done in the present case and, therefore, both the petitioners who have admittedly not gained teaching experience in full time employment were not allowed to sit in the competitive test. 5. The State respondent in its separate counter-affidavit has only contended that it is the Commission who has interpreted the word 'experience' and prescribed the same in the advertisement in question. 5. The State respondent in its separate counter-affidavit has only contended that it is the Commission who has interpreted the word 'experience' and prescribed the same in the advertisement in question. Admitting that the rules for the said posts have not specifically elaborated the word 'experience', it is contended that the Commission being the appropriate authority has the liberty to provide a standard like full time experience or experience in full time employment for the purpose of selecting suitable candidates. 6. The private respondents who have also filed separate counter-affidavit challenging the claim of the petitioners have pleaded nothing to deserve separate discussion, having regard to the issue involved in the present controversy. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel for the Commission, assisted by other learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that the decision to interpret the word 'experience' as done by the Commission in the present case providing that it must be in full time employment cannot be called in question for the reason that the word 'experience' is vague and, therefore, the Commission has the power to interpret the same for the purpose of selecting suitable candidates. It is his further submission that the Commission has collected information from Public Service Commission of other States, a perusal of which would show that full time experience is treated as the experience everywhere for the purpose of eligibility for a post. The letter from Mizoram Public Service Commission (Annexure-E) reads-- ...The experience gained by the candidate in a part-time job is counted/considered for determining his or her eligibility only when there is a provision in the concerned Recruitment Rules to count such experiences. The Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission has stated in its letter to the Commission that-- ...As per the recruitment policy of the State of Arunachal Pradesh a part-time experience gained by a candidate is not counted/considered for determining his/her eligibility for a post where experience of certain years is a part of the essential qualifications for the post. The Haryana Public Service Commission states-- ...Part-time experience is not considered by this Commission for eligibility where some experience is required for certain posts under the rules. The Haryana Public Service Commission states-- ...Part-time experience is not considered by this Commission for eligibility where some experience is required for certain posts under the rules. The Gujarat Public Service Commission has informed that-- ...The experience gained by a candidate in a part-time job is not counted/considered for determining his/her eligibility for selection to a post where experience of certain years is a part of the essential qualification for the post. Similarly, the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission has also informed that-- ...The Commission does not consider experience gained by a candidate in part-time job for determining his/her eligibility for selection to a post. Mr. Deb would thus argue that part-time experience is nowhere considered as experience when the relevant rules specifically require experience as one of the essential qualifications. 9. His next submission is that the petitioners cannot challenge the decision of the Commission requiring a candidate to have full time experience in particular discipline. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) K.G. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Ors. AIR 2006 SC 2339 . In this case, it has been held that it is open to the High Court to prescribe minimum pass marks for written and oral examinations. (ii) Union of India and Ors. v. S. Vinodh Kumar and Ors. AIR 2008 SC 5 . In this case, the railways while making recruitment to the post of "Gangman" fixed cut-off marks separately for general category and reserved category candidates. However, some vacancies remained unfilled because the railways could not get requisite number of candidates within the cut-off marks. The competent authority took a specific decision not to lower the cut-off marks because it was not considered to be conducive to general merit of candidates. The question was whether the decision was arbitrary in view of the fact that some of the vacancies remained unfilled. It has been held that when the authority has jurisdiction to fix the cut-off marks, the necessary corollary thereof would be that it could not be directed to lower the same. This decision does not have any application in the present case. (iii) Madan Lal and Ors. v. State of J& K and Ors. [1995] 1 SCR 908. Here, lower marks in viva-voce test was assigned to candidates who had obtained higher marks in the written test. This decision does not have any application in the present case. (iii) Madan Lal and Ors. v. State of J& K and Ors. [1995] 1 SCR 908. Here, lower marks in viva-voce test was assigned to candidates who had obtained higher marks in the written test. The Apex Court held that the same did not amount to unfair treatment. This decision also has no application in the present case. 10. What has finally emerged from the submission of Mr. Deb is that the petitioners after having applied for the post knowing fully well that experience in full time employment is one of the essential qualifications are legally precluded from challenging the advertisement after the selection process is over. Secondly, the Commission has every right to interpret and provide in the advertisement what is to be meant by the word 'experience' in the recruitment rules as otherwise no definite standard for the same would be available before the Commission for selecting suitable candidates. Thirdly, all other State Public Service Commissions like the first respondent herein follow the same practice of interpreting 'experience' as 'full time experience' and, therefore, there is no illegality in the advertisement under challenge. 11. Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner would controvert this argument by making a submission that though undoubtedly the Commission has every power and authority to interpret and provide that experience has to be full time experience, but it cannot say that the experience must be in full time employment. 'Employment' and 'experience' are quite different connotations and one cannot be substituted or meant for the other. Even in a part-time job a person can obtain required experience while in a full time job he may not acquire required experience. Admittedly, Mr. Talapatra would continue, both the petitioners have been teaching in the said institute in their respective disciplines for a pretty long years and the number of classes taken by them in every month is not less than the number of classes taken by the teachers in full time employment. What is to be determined by the words 'teaching experience' provided in the rules is the length of period and number of classes taken by the prospective candidates. What is to be determined by the words 'teaching experience' provided in the rules is the length of period and number of classes taken by the prospective candidates. The Commission has not made any attempt to interpret and provide what would amount to required experience for the post for the reason that the recruitment rules have only prescribed experience as one of the essential qualifications. Admitting that the Commission has the authority to provide that the experience must be full time experience, the Commission should have further provided what would amount to full time experience for determining eligibility. But the Commission has not done the same. Instead, the Commission has shifted the emphasis from 'experience' to 'employment' by prescribing in the advertisement impugned that experience has to be in full-time employment. In other words, even if a person in full-time employment does not have required teaching experience, he would be eligible for the post of lecturer. In that view of the matter, Mr. Talapatra would strongly submit that the prescription in the advertisement under question requiring that a candidate must have experience in full-time employment is inconsistent with the provisions of the rules which give emphasis on experience only, with motive of ousting the existing part-time teachers including the petitioners from the field of competition. According to Mr. Talapatra, the advertisement is thus liable to be set aside and there should be a fresh exercise for selection of candidates for the posts for which the petitioners had applied. 12. Having regard to the rival submissions advanced and the facts pleaded, the following positions have emerged: (a) The petitioners are part-time lecturers and they have acquired experience for more than three years in Pharmacology and Pharm. Chemistry. They applied for the post of lecturer in Pharmacy (Pharmacology) and lecturer in Pharmacy (Pharm. Chemistry). There petitions have been rejected only because the experience acquired by them was in part-time employment. (b) As regards the educational and other qualifications, the rules for the said posts specifically provide as follows: M. Pharm. (Pharmacology) or M. Pharm. (Pharm. Chemistry) failing which M. Pharm. with 2(two) hears teaching experience in Pharmacology or Pharm. Chemistry, as the case may be, or B. Pharm. with 3 (three) years teaching experience in Pharmacology or Pharm. Chemistry. The petitioners being B. Pharm. with three years teaching experience in Pharmacology and Pharm. Chemistry claimed to be eligible for the said posts. (Pharm. Chemistry) failing which M. Pharm. with 2(two) hears teaching experience in Pharmacology or Pharm. Chemistry, as the case may be, or B. Pharm. with 3 (three) years teaching experience in Pharmacology or Pharm. Chemistry. The petitioners being B. Pharm. with three years teaching experience in Pharmacology and Pharm. Chemistry claimed to be eligible for the said posts. (c) The rules do not provide that the teaching experience for three years must be in full time employment. It is only the Commission who has inserted in the advertisement that the said experience must be in full time employment. (d) The communications received from the Public Service Commissions of other States would definitely indicate that full-time experience only is accepted as experience for the purpose of selecting suitable candidates. 13. From the above, I have no manner of doubt to take a view that as the word 'teaching experience' has not been explained by the rules, the Commission is free to determine, for the purpose of selection of suitable candidates, that such experience must be full-time experience. But at the same time, the Commission should have also determined what would amount to full time experience. In other words, after taking how many classes in three years a candidate may be said to have gained full time experience. Instances are not rare when a teacher in full time employment hardly takes classes and remains busy with administrative works. As teaching experience is considered by the rules to be one of the essential qualifications, the Commission, in my considered view, should have determined what would amount to full time teaching experience as because the word 'teaching' acquires more significance for the purpose of eligibility. But the Commission has provided in the advertisement in question that the teaching experience must be only in full time employment. In other words, the emphasis, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Talapatra, is on the nature of employment, not on the teaching experience. I fail to understand how nature of employment would automatically determine teaching experience of a person during a period of three years which is sine qua non for the eligibility test. I also fail to understand how experienced teachers in full time employment in other institutions are expected by Commission to apply for similar posts in RIPSAT in Tripura. I fail to understand how nature of employment would automatically determine teaching experience of a person during a period of three years which is sine qua non for the eligibility test. I also fail to understand how experienced teachers in full time employment in other institutions are expected by Commission to apply for similar posts in RIPSAT in Tripura. In my considered view, the Commission has every authority to determine for the purpose of short-listing suitable candidates that teaching experience must be full time experience and define what would amount to 'full time experience'. But I am inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Talapatra that even a part-time teacher can gain full time experience and even a full time teacher may not gain the same. The Commission by shifting the emphasis from 'teaching experience' to 'full time employment' has failed to follow the requirement of the rules. It has, therefore, acted beyond its jurisdiction. 14. For the reasons and discussions aforementioned, both the writ petitions have merit and the same are allowed. It is submitted at Bar that all other posts advertised have been filled up except the two posts for which the petitioners have applied, These are yet to be filled up because of the interim order of this Court. Therefore, the advertisement in question, with regard to these two posts only prescribing experience 'in full time employment only' stands set aside and quashed. The Commission shall proceed afresh to select suitable candidates for the said posts with liberty to prescribe what is actually to be meant by the word 'experience' in terms of number of classes taken or otherwise. But the nature of employment cannot be a criteria for determining required teaching experience. Needless to say, the two petitioners who have put in required number of years as part-time lecturer shall have the opportunity of appearing in the test if they are found otherwise suitable in terms of the rules, particularly their teaching experience. No cost. Petition allowed