JUDGMENT H.N. Sarma, J. 1. Challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 9.1.2008 passed analogously in WP (C) No. 414/2005 and WP (C) No. 277/2006, the appellant, namely, Tripura Public Service Commission, has filed these two writ appeals and the same are heard analogously as prayed for by learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. We have heard Mr. S. Deb, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Datta, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Talapatra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Banerjee for the respondents/writ petitioners, both the appeals. 3. The broad facts involved in both the writ petitions out of which these two writ appeals arise are not in dispute. The facts to put short, are as follows. The Health Department in the State of Tripura being in requirement to appoint Lecturers in different branches of the Regional Institute of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology (for short 'RIPS AT'), Agartala, made a requisition to the Tripura Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission' for selection of suitable candidates for such appointment, in terms of the relevant service rule. The aforesaid requisition was for 8 (eight) numbers of Lecturer as contained in its letter dated 16.8.2004 issued by the Additional Secretary, Government of Tripura, Health and Family Welfare Department. On receipt of the said requisition, the Commission decided to go on with the recruitment process as per the existing statutory rules holding the field namely, Recruitment Rules for the Post of Lecturer in Pharmacy (Pharma-Chemistry) which lays down and prescribes the essential educational qualification to hold the post as 'M. Pharm (Pharm. Chemistry) failing which M. Pharma with two years teaching experience in Pharma Chemistry failing which B. Pharm with three years teaching experience in Pharma Chemistry.' Pursuant to the aforesaid requisition an advertisement was made by the Commission in two local dailies on 1.2.2005. In the said advertisement clause with the heading instruction to the candidates was also inserted. As per Clause 5 of the said instruction it was provided that Where a number of years of experience is prescribed as on item of Qualification, Experience would mean only experience gained in full time employment after acquiring minimum academic qualifications including Training, if any. 4. Pursuant to the said advertisement several candidates, including the writ petitioners, applied for the post. 4. Pursuant to the said advertisement several candidates, including the writ petitioners, applied for the post. Both the petitioners are degree holder in Pharmacy and serving as part time Lecturers at RIPS AT, since 1.6.2000, having so appointed by the competent authority vide order dated 29.5.2000 initially for 6 months, but extended for twice till. 5. The commission submitted the applications of the candidates and having found that both the petitioners are only B. Pharm degree holder and are serving as part time Lecturers, their candidatures were rejected on the ground of non-fulfillment of the clause incorporated in the said advertisement interpreting 'experience' as experience gained in full time employment. According to the Commission, they were not found eligible to hold the post of Lecturer for want of essential educational qualification. Aggrieved by such decision of the commission, the petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petitions namely, WP (C) No. 414/05 and WP (C) No. 277/06. 6. The grievance of the petitioners are that the aforesaid criteria relating to the educational qualification, namely teaching experience would mean only experience gained in full time employment is not in the relevant statutory service rule and they inserted by the Commission on its own and the same not being a part of the Recruitment Rules, the Commission acted beyond its jurisdiction by inserting the said clause and they were illegally and unauthorisedly deprived of to participate in the selection process thereby adversely affecting their valuable rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, apart from violation of the Recruitment Rules. 7. The Commission resisted the claim of the petitioners by filing a counter. The stand of the Commission is that it has got the jurisdictional authority to prescribe such experience by providing necessary explanation which is also adopted by the Public Service Commissions of different States of the country and there having no such specific explanatory provision in the service rule, the Commission cannot be said to have acted without jurisdiction in prescribing the same, that too when it was made known to the candidates through the advertisement itself. 8. 8. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties allowed both the writ petitions directing the Commission to proceed with the fresh selection of suitable candidate to the post which were directed not to be filed up byway of an interim order of the Court, with liberty to the Commission to prescribe the actual meaning of the word 'experience'. 9. Challenging the impugned judgment, Mr. S. Deb, learned Senior Counsel has contended that the petitioners having applied for the post knowing full well about the conditions imposed by the Commission relating to the experience and thus having opted to act as per the said conditions, they are now stopped from challenging the same when their applications were rejected for not having essential educational qualification as per the clause in the advertisement. It is further contended that in WP(C) No. 277/2006 the petitioner has not impleaded the other selected candidates and without such impleadment the process of selected candidates cannot be questioned nor that can be interfered with by the Court in their absence. Further contention of the learned Counsel is that the petitioner did not approach the Court with promptness although they know much earlier that their candidatures were rejected by the Commission and accordingly they are guilty of laches. Finally, the senior counsel contended that the Commission is within fits jurisdiction to lay down the conditions in the advertisement, in the absence of any explanatory note regarding the 'experience' in the Recruitment Rules by adding the clause under the heading "instruction to candidate" and not to count the experience gained by the candidate only by way of part time employment in considering the educational qualification as per the Recruitment Rules. 10. Per contra, Mr. Talapatra, learned Senior Counsel submits that the Commission has acted wholly without jurisdiction in incorporating the aforesaid clause in the name of explanatory clause under the heading 'instruction to the candidate' as regards the experience inasmuch as there is no such prohibition under the statutory rules. 10. Per contra, Mr. Talapatra, learned Senior Counsel submits that the Commission has acted wholly without jurisdiction in incorporating the aforesaid clause in the name of explanatory clause under the heading 'instruction to the candidate' as regards the experience inasmuch as there is no such prohibition under the statutory rules. According to the learned Counsel the word 'experience' include the experience earned both by way of part time employment and regular employment and the petitioners having earned necessary experience by rendering service as part time Lecturers have got the necessary experience within the meaning of the recruitment rules and the Commission has no authority to prescribe the essential qualification and as such the decision of the commission rejecting their candidatures on such ground is wholly without jurisdiction which amounts to violation of the fundamental rights as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India apart from the Recruitment Rules. It is further contended that in WP (C) No. 414/05 the petitioner having impleaded all the selected candidates both the petitioners having heard analogously, no prejudice has been caused for the selected candidates as they were very much before the Court at time of hearing of the petition. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the State Respondents having accepted the verdict of the learned Single Judge, have not filed any appeal and in such a situation, the role of the Commission being only a limited one these appeals are not maintainable in the absence of such appeal by the State. 11. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. During the course of hearing related records of the Commission viz. File No. F. Ex. 1/36 (104)-TPSC/2004 has been produced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and we have perused the same. 12. Before adverting to the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties, we proceed to highlight certain aspects that emerged from perusal of the departmental record. The record discloses that upon receipt of the requisition from the Health and Family Welfare Department, the Commission vide its letter dated 3.9.2005 communicated to the Government that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 1.2.2005 so made by the Commission in all 30 (thirty) applications have been received, out of which upon scrutiny, 9 (nine) applicants for the post of Lecturer in Pharmacology/Pharm. Chemistry were found eligible and 21 such candidates were not found eligible. In reply to the said letter the under Secretary Government of Tripura, Health and Family Welfare Department wrote to the Commission that all the rejected candidates so listed in its communication dated 3.9.2005 namely Sri Digpati Roy, Sri Bikash Debbarma and Sri Rupak Mazumdar (Petitioners in WP (C) No. 277/2006) and Sri Pran Krishna Roy and Sri Partha Sarathi Dutta (Petitioners in WP (C) No. 414/2005) who were working till then as part time Lecturer at RIPS AT may also be called for interview. The record further disclose that the Commission vide its note. No. 38 rejected the same on the ground that they do not possess the requisite experience as full time employment as per the clause inserted in the advertisement. Note No. 40 further states that as certain conditions laid down as per item No. 19 as 'instruction to the candidates' explaining that the experience means experience gained by full time employment only and the aforesaid candidates having been worked only as part time Lecturer, their cases could not be considered. It is further stated in that note that in future such cases maybe considered for the purpose of interview provided there is a Government decision duly approved by the Cabinet and incorporated in the Recruitment Rules. This note is dated 27.9.2005). 13. Turning to the points raised by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant to the effect that the selected candidates not having been impleaded in WP (C) No. 277/2006 by the writ petitioner, it is to be noted that both the writ petitions were heard analogously and in the other writ petition all the selected candidates were impleaded and both the writ petitioners were heard analogously through the same set of counsel and as such no prejudice has been caused to the Commission for not impleading the selected candidates in one of the writ petitions. That apart, such a plea could have been raised at appropriate point of time before the learned Single Judge. Moreover, the petitioners having not questioned the validity of the selection of the other candidates. The order passed by the learned Single Judge has not affected the selection process of those candidates and accordingly the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel does not merit acceptance. Moreover, the petitioners having not questioned the validity of the selection of the other candidates. The order passed by the learned Single Judge has not affected the selection process of those candidates and accordingly the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel does not merit acceptance. In our considered opinion, this is nothing but a technical plea without having any substance. 14. Further contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant to the effect that the petitioners having fully aware of the conditions imposed by the Commission in advertisement and inspite of such clause they having applied for the post go to show that they have accepted the said condition and accordingly they are stopped from questioning the aforesaid authority, is referred only for the purpose of rejection inasmuch as it is one of the fundamental principle of law, that when certain valuable right of the petitioner have been infringed not allowing them to participate in the selection process rejecting their candidature by laying down certain clause by the Commission itself, certainly it goes to the root of the matter affecting their fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and can be agitated before appropriate forum available under the law. 15. The basic question that falls for consideration in these two appeals are as to whether the Commission was empowered by law to incorporate the Clause 5 under heading instruction to the candidates whereby it prescribes and explains what is meant by term 'experience' in the Recruitment Rules. Admittedly, the Recruitment Rule is silent about the word 'experience'. Although the Rule is silent the authority vide its letter dated 29.4.2005 requested the Commission to call upon the five candidates, including the writ petitioners to call for such interview, but the same was turned down by the Commission for the reasons as indicated earlier as reflected from the note sheet. This go to show that the authority has accepted that those candidates including the petitioners have earned the necessary experience within the meaning of Recruitment Rules. 16. The Public Service Commission is an authority which is constituted as per the provisions of Article315 of the Constitution of India falling under Chaptern. The function of such Public Service Commission is prescribed by the Constitution under Article 320 and such function is to conduct the examination for appointment to the services for the State. 16. The Public Service Commission is an authority which is constituted as per the provisions of Article315 of the Constitution of India falling under Chaptern. The function of such Public Service Commission is prescribed by the Constitution under Article 320 and such function is to conduct the examination for appointment to the services for the State. Further under Article 320 State Public Service Commission shall be consulted- (a) On all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts; (b) On the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts and in making promotions and transfers from one service to another and on the suitability of candidates for such appointments, promotions or transfers; (c) On all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State in a civil capacity, including memorials or petitions relating to such matters; (d) On any claim by or in respect of a person who is serving or has served under the Government of India or the Government of a State or under the Crown in India or under the Government of an Indian State, in a civil capacity, that any costs incurred by him in defending legal proceedings instituted against him in respect of acts done or purporting to be done in the execution of his duty should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India, or, as the case may be, out of the Consolidated Fund of the State; (e) On any claim for the award of a pension in respect of injuries sustained by a person while serving under the Government of India or the Government of a State or under the Crown in India or under the Government of an Indian State, in a civil capacity, and any question as to the amount of any such award. And it shall be the duty of a Public Service Commission to advise on any matter so referred to them and on any other matter which the President, or, as the case may be, the Governor of the State, may refer to the. 17. In the instant case, the Commission put the aforesaid rider referring experience as the only experience earned by way of full time employment. 17. In the instant case, the Commission put the aforesaid rider referring experience as the only experience earned by way of full time employment. The statutory Recruitment Rule, published vide Notification dated 10.11.1987 which was framed in consultation with the Commission itself at Clause 7 of the schedule, prescribes as the qualification as follows: 7. Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits: Mr. Pharm (Pharm. Chemistry failing which M. Pharma with two years teaching experience in Pharm. Chemistry failing which B. Pharm with three years teaching experience in Pharma Chemistry. 18. The aforesaid word 'experience' has been explained by the Commission as experience to be earned by way of regular employment and not as part time employment. A similar dispute came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of P.K. Ramchandra Iyer and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1984 (1) LLJ 314 SC, i.e., relating to the power of the recruiting authority to put such additional incorporation in the advertisement or in the selection process which was not in the Recruitment Rules. In that case challenge made was regarding the jurisdictional authority of the Agricultural Recruitment Board for prescribing the minimum marks which the candidate must obtain at the written test before becoming eligible for the post. The Apex Court in that case held inter alia that neither the Recruitment Rule nor any other Rule enable the Recruiting Board to prescribe minimum qualifying marks to be obtained by the candidate at the viva voce test. On the contrary, the language of the related Rule 14 clearly negatives any such power of the Recruitment Board when it provides that after the written test if the candidate has obtained minimum marks, he is eligible for being called for viva voce test and final merit list would be drawn up according to the aggregate of marks obtained by the candidate in written test plus viva voce test. It is held by the Apex Court that the additional qualification which the Recruitment Board prescribed to itself namely, that the candidate must have a further qualification of obtaining minimum marks in the viva voce test does not find place in the Recruitment Rule and it amounts virtually to a modification of the rules and by necessary inference, there was no, such power vested upon the Recruitment Board to add to the required qualification. It is further held that if such power is claimed, it has to be explicit and cannot be read by necessary implication for the obvious reason that such deviation from the rules is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm. 19. Again in the case of Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in [1987] 3 SCR 1097, the Apex Court held inter alia that the Orissa Judicial Service Rules do not prescribe any minimum qualifying marks to be secured at the viva voce test for selection of Munsiffs. Rule 18 enjoins that after the viva voce test, the Commission shall add the marks of the viva voce test to the marks in the written examination and therefore, the Commission has no power to prescribe such minimum standard for determining the suitability of candidates for appointment as Munsiffs and to exclude the name of any candidate from the select list merely because he has secured less marks of the viva voce test. In the case of Durgacharan Misra (supra) the Apex Court also relied on its earlier decision reported in AIR 1985 SC 1351 (Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India). 20. Admittedly, the Public Service Commission is a consultancy body/authority. It does not possess the power of legislature nor it has the power to add in the rule. Even if there is any deficiency in the Recruitment Rule, this power is left to the wisdom of the Legislature only. The impugned action of the Commission in the instant case prescribing and incorporating the word 'experience' only to be meant in respect of the experience earned/gathered by way of regular' employment only and to the exclusion of the part time employment. In our considered opinion it is not authorized by the scheme of the Constitution as prescribed under Article 315 or Article 320 of the Constitution. The State has also accepted the position and has not come up to challenge the impugned judgment. 21. For the reasons what have been discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the incorporation of the Clause No. 5 under the heading instruction to the candidates restricting the experience earned by the candidates to be only from the full time employment excluding the part time employment is beyond its authority and power as provided by the Constitution. For the reasons what have been discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the incorporation of the Clause No. 5 under the heading instruction to the candidates restricting the experience earned by the candidates to be only from the full time employment excluding the part time employment is beyond its authority and power as provided by the Constitution. In that view of the matter, we affirm the final decision rendered by the learned Single Judge but not on the grounds mentioned by the learned Single Judge and on the grounds as indicated hereinabove. 22 The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has referred to some inconsistency mentioned in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the impugned judgment, but those inconsistency will have no effect in view of the aforesaid discussions and directions given herein. The Commission is directed to proceed with the recruitment process in respect of the remaining vacancies (two in number) providing opportunities and calling up on all the five candidates as referred in its Note Sheet No. 38 whose names have been forwarded by the State Government as mentioned in the earlier part of the order accepting that they possess the required experience by rendering service as part time Lecturer at RIPS AT. 22. Since the institution is suffering for want of adequate Lecturer, the necessary process shall be completed by the Commission as early as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. 23. In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.