JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. A.C. Borbora, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Smit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Upamanyu, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department, Assam appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2, Mr. B. Sinha, learned Standing Counsel, APSC, representing respondent nos. 3 and 4, Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel for respondent no. 5, Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 and Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for respondent no. 8. None appears for respondent no. 7. 2. By filing the writ petition, a challenge has been made to the selection of the respondent no. 6 for appointment to the post of Lecturer of Orthodontics in the Regional Dental College, Guwahati. The facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition, briefly stated, is that the respondent no. 3 had earlier issued an advertisement notice published in the English daily newspaper “The Assam Tribune” in its issue dated 08/06/2015, inviting applications for filling up a few posts of Lecturers in the Regional Dental College, Guwahati, under the Health and Family Welfare Department, Assam. The controversy in this proceeding revolves around selection and appointment to the post of “Lecturer of Orthodontics” appearing at Sl. No. 3 in the category of posts appearing in the advertisement published on 08/06/2015. The writ petitioner and the respondent no. 6 had both applied for the said post of “Lecturer of Orthodontics”. In total, 7 (seven) candidates had applied for the post of “Lecturer of Orthodontics”. On completion of the interview process, the respondent No 3 published the select list for all the categories of post including the post of Lecturer of Orthodontics and the respondent No 6 was shown as the selected candidate for the said post. Aggrieved by the selection of the respondent no.6, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. According to the writ petitioner, the respondent no. 6 did not meet the eligibility norm of one year experience in the post of “Tutor of Public Health Dentistry” as required under the experience clause notified in the advertisement. It is the further case of the petitioner that the advertisement notice clearly mentioned that preference shall be given to the Doctors working under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) at Regional Dental College, Guwahati. It is the further case of the petitioner that the advertisement notice clearly mentioned that preference shall be given to the Doctors working under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) at Regional Dental College, Guwahati. Since the petitioner was working as a Doctor in the Regional Dental College, Guwahati, on being appointed under Regulation 3 (f) with effect from the month of March, 2012 till June, 2013 as a Tutor of Public Health Dentistry and thereafter, as a Lecturer of Orthodontics with effect from June, 2013 till date, he was more qualified to be regularly appointed in the post of Lecturer of Orthodontics. However, by ignoring the better qualifications and merit of the writ petitioner, the respondent no. 6, who was not even eligible to be appointed, was selected by the respondent no. 3. 4. Referring to the advertisement notice dated 08/06/2015, more particularly, the experience clause, Mr. Borbora, learned senior counsel has forcefully argued that as per the advertisement notice, minimum one year experience in the post of “Tutor of Public Health Dentistry” was a sine qua non for permitting any candidate to apply for the post of “Lecturer of Orthodontics”. The learned senior counsel submits that in this case, there is no dispute about the fact that the writ petitioner meets the said experience norm. It is also the admitted position of fact that the respondent no. 6 does not have one year experience as “Tutor of Public Health Dentistry”. In such view of the matter, submits Mr. Borbora, the respondent no. 6 was not even eligible to apply for the post of “Lecturer of Orthodontics” and his selection is, therefore, liable to be declared as null and void by this Court. 5. By referring to the pleadings contained in the writ petition, more particularly, those in paragraphs 19 and 20, Mr. Borbora submits that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were the members of the two member Interview Board and the respondent no. 5 was inducted as the subject expert. During the course of interview, submits Mr. Borbora, no relevant question was asked to the petitioner by the respondent no. 4. On the contrary, the questions asked by the said respondent were completely irrelevant for the purpose of the interview process. Not only that, submits Mr. 5 was inducted as the subject expert. During the course of interview, submits Mr. Borbora, no relevant question was asked to the petitioner by the respondent no. 4. On the contrary, the questions asked by the said respondent were completely irrelevant for the purpose of the interview process. Not only that, submits Mr. Borbora, even the certificates/documents and publications carried along with him by the writ petitioner in terms of the requirement of the interview call letter, were not looked into by the Interview Board nor were any relevant question asked to him in that regard. Therefore, submits Mr. Borbora, the entire process of interview conducted by the respondent no. 4 was a farce. Since the selection of the respondent no. 6 is based upon such sham selection process, his selection itself was bad in law and liable to be declared so by this Court. 6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has also invited the attention of this Court to the contents of the affidavit filed by the respondent no. 5 (subject expert) to contend that the said respondent had categorically stated that the petitioner was graded as “Excellent” by him. Under such circumstances, submits Mr. Borbora, that there was no scope for the Selection Committee to select the respondent no. 6 by ignoring the better merit of the writ petitioner. 7. The respondent no. 6 has contested the writ petition by filing counter affidavit. According to Mr. Buragohain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No 6, the advertisement notice published in the newspaper on 08/06/2015 is at variance with the notice that was circulated by the respondent no. 3 in its official web site on 08-06-2015. Referring to the copy of the advertisement Notice published in the website of respondent No 3 (annexure –E to the counter-affidavit ) Mr Buragohain submits that in the said notice the name of the post appearing at serial no. 7 has been shown as “Tutor of Public Dentistry”. According to the learned counsel, the experience clause was meant only for the post of “Tutor of Public Dentistry” which post was incorrectly shown as “Lecturer of Public Health and Dentistry”, at Sl. No. 7 in the list of posts indicated in the advertisement notice published in the newspaper. 8. By referring to the latest guidelines published by the Dental Council of India (DCI), Mr. No. 7 in the list of posts indicated in the advertisement notice published in the newspaper. 8. By referring to the latest guidelines published by the Dental Council of India (DCI), Mr. Buragohain further submits that the basic qualification required for appointment in the post of “Lecturer in Orthodontics” is MDS degree from a recognised Indian University but the educational qualification required for appointment as “Tutor” in Public Health Dentistry is only a recognised BDS degree along with at-least one year experience. Mr. Buragohain submits that from a bare reading of the guidelines issued by the DCI as well as the advertisement notice published by the respondent no.3, it would be established beyond doubt that the experience clause was only meant for the post of “Lecturer of Public Health Dentistry”, which is actually a post of “Tutor of Public Health Dentistry”. 9. Mr. Buragohain has also submitted that his client is not only qualified but he also has the requisite experience to apply for the post of “Lecturer in Orthodontics” as per the advertisement notice. In support of his argument, Mr. Buragohain has referred to the experience certificates annexed to his counter affidavit in the form of Annexure-D (series). 10. The respondent no. 3 has not filed any affidavit. However, Mr. B. Sinha, learned Standing Counsel, APSC has produced the records pertaining to the selection process. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties it appears to this Court that the core controversy in this proceeding revolves around the question as to whether the respondent no. 6 fulfilled the eligibility norms to apply for the post of “Lecturer Orthodontic” in response to the advertisement notice published by the APSC. For an effective adjudication of the said issue, a reference to the contents of the advertisement notice would be necessary. The relevant portion of the advertisement published in the news paper “Assam Tribune” (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) in it issue dated 08/06/2015 is, therefore, extracted herein below :- “ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Assam Tribune dated 8/6/2015 Assam Public Service Commission invites application from Indian Citizens as defined Articles 5 to 8 of the Constitution of India for the under-mentioned posts under Assam Government in the scale of pay as indicated below and carrying usual allowances as admissible under Rules of the Govt. of Assam. of Assam. (A) The following posts are at Regional Dental College, Guwahati under Health & Family Welfare (B) Deptt. Sl. No. Name of Post Requisite qualification No. of vacancy Category 1 Lecturer of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery MDS in oral & Maxillofacial Surgery. 1 (one) OBC 2 Lecturer of Prosthodontics MDS in Prosthodontics 2 (two) OC-1 OBC-1 3 Lecturer of Orthodontics MDS in Orthodontics 1 (one) OC 4 Lecturer of Oral Medicine & Radiology MDS in Oral Medicine & Radiology 1(one) OC 5 Lecturer of Pedodontics MDS in Pedodontics 1(one) OC 6 Lecturer of Aneasthesiology MD in Aneasthesiology 1(one) OC 7 Lecturer of Public Health Dentistry BDS in Public Health Dentistry 1(one) OC (i) SCALE OF PAY : Rs. 15,600/- to Rs. 39,100/- PM and AGP of Rs. 7000/- PM (for Lecturer) and Rs. 15,600/- to Rs. 39,100/- and AGP of Rs. 6000/- PM (for Tutor) plus other allowances as admissible under Rules. Preference shall be given to doctors working under Regulation 3(f) of APSC at Regional Dental College, Guwahati. (ii) AGE : Between 21 years to 38 years as on 01/01/2015. Relaxation for upper age will be considered as per existing norms. (iii) EXPERIENCE : 1(one) year experience for the post of “Tutor of Public Health Dentistry.” 12. From the contents of the advertisement notice relied upon by the petitioner, it is seen that on the basis of educational qualification and the pay scale applicable, those posts can be broadly classified into two categories. The qualification norms for the six category of posts appearing in serial number 1 to 6 is Masters Degree (MDS) and the pay scale applicable is Rs. 15,600/- to Rs. 39,100/- PM with AGP of Rs. 7000/- PM whereas for the post of Lecturer in Public Health Dentistry (at serial No. 7) the qualification required is BDS in Public Health Dentistry and the pay scale is Rs. 15,600/- to Rs. 39,100/- and AGP of Rs. 6000/- PM. The Annual Grade Pay (AGP) for the post at serial No. 7 is lesser than the other posts. That apart, he use of the expression “for Tutor” against the second pay scale also strongly suggests that the post “Lecturer in Public Health Dentistry” appearing at serial No 7 in the list of posts is actually the post of “Tutor in Public Health Dentistry” . 13. That apart, he use of the expression “for Tutor” against the second pay scale also strongly suggests that the post “Lecturer in Public Health Dentistry” appearing at serial No 7 in the list of posts is actually the post of “Tutor in Public Health Dentistry” . 13. A proper examination of the guidelines issued by the Dental Council of India (DCI) also goes to show that at-least one year experience along with BDS degree from a recognised Indian University is necessary for “Tutors” but no such experience requirement has been attached to the post of Lecturer holding a Masters Degree. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the post of Lecturer in Public Health Dentistry appearing at serial No 7 of the advertisement is actually the post of “Tutor” in Public Health Dentistry and, therefore, the experience clause was included in the advertisement notice only to apply in case of the said posts shown at Sl. No. 7 in the advertisement. In other words, the requirement of one year work experience was not applicable for the post of “Lecturer of Orthodontics”. Since the respondent no. 6 is holding a Masters Degree (MDS) hence, he was eligible to apply for the post of “Lecturer of Orthodontics” and there was no further requirement of having experience of one year as “Tutor” in Public Health Dentistry in order to be eligible to apply for that post. 14. Having held as above, this Court deems it necessary to refer to the other allegations brought by the writ petitioner regarding the validity of the interview process and the selection criteria adopted by the respondent No 3. The marks were awarded on five different heads viz. (i) Educational Qualification, (ii) Experience, (iii) Preference under Regulation 3(f), (iv) General Bearing and (v) knowledge of subject. From a perusal of the record produced by the learned Standing Counsel, APSC, it can be seen that the respondent no. 6 stood first amongst the candidates by scoring 76 marks while the petitioner was placed at second position with 74 marks. From an analysis of the record, the marks that have been awarded to the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 on different heads is given herein below in tabular form :- Sl. NO. Roll No. Name, Age and Community Educational Qualification Addl. From an analysis of the record, the marks that have been awarded to the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 on different heads is given herein below in tabular form :- Sl. NO. Roll No. Name, Age and Community Educational Qualification Addl. Qualification Sub Total Experience Preference under Regulation 3F General Bearing Knowledge of the subject Grand Total Remarks : Sl. NO. Roll No. Name, Age and Community Educational Qualification Addl. Qualification Sub Total Experience Preference under Regulation 3F General Bearing Knowledge of the subject Grand Total Remarks HSLC HS Degree (BDS) Master Degree (MDS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1. 0000005 Neelutpal Bora 31-00-10 GENL 343 500 6.86 335 500 5.36 633 1000 6.33 375 700 8.03 - 26.58 27 2 3 22 20 74 HSLC I/99 (AISSE) HS I/01 (AISSE) BDS I/05 MDS II/10 REGN NO. 811-A. Reg 3(f) wef 29-6-13 to till date. 2 0000007 John Patowary 36-03-04 GENL 661 900 7.34 345 500 5.52 584 1000 5.84 354 600 8.85 - 27.55 28 2 - 28 18 76 HS I/97 B .SC II/01 BDS II/05 MDS P/2014 Regn. No. 735-A 15. From the above table, it can be seen that the petitioner had scored the maximum of 20 marks as compared to 18 marks scored by the respondent no. 6 in the category of “knowledge of the subject”. Record further reveals that the subject expert had remarked “excellent” in case of the writ petitioner as against the remark of “very good” for the respondent No 6. That apart, 3 marks were awarded to the writ petitioner on the category of “Preference under Regulation 3(f)” but nothing was awarded to the respondent no. 6 under the said head. Both the writ petitioner and the respondent no. 6 have been awarded 2 marks each under the head “Experience”. The respondent no. 6 has, however, scored higher marks than the writ petitioner in the category of “Educational Qualification” as well as “General Bearing” (GK). The total marks obtained by the respondent no. 6 are higher than the writ petitioner. 16. The learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner was permitted to inspect the records of the Selection Committee, on completion of which Mr. Borbora submits that his objections are pertaining to the equal marks awarded to both the candidates under the head “Experience”. According to Mr. 6 are higher than the writ petitioner. 16. The learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner was permitted to inspect the records of the Selection Committee, on completion of which Mr. Borbora submits that his objections are pertaining to the equal marks awarded to both the candidates under the head “Experience”. According to Mr. Borbora the experience of the respondent no. 6 of having worked under private clinics/Dental Care centres could not have been recognised by the Selection Committee at all. Mr. Borbora has also submitted that the marks awarded on the head of “Educational Qualification” were not worked out on the basis of any transparent criteria. The learned senior counsel has, however, fairly submitted that in so far as the marks awarded in the other categories, he does not have any complaint to make. 17. In so far as the marks awarded in the head of “Educational Qualification”, the respondent no. 6 had scored 28 as compared to 27 marks scored by the petitioner. From the records of the Selection Committee, the criteria adopted while awarding marks in the head of “Educational Qualification” is not discernable. However, what is evident from the record is that marks had been awarded on the basis of percentage of marks scored by each of the candidates at the level of HSLC, HS, Degree and Masters Degree. The respondent No. 6 had higher percentage of marks at three levels i.e. HSLC, HS and MDS whereas the percentage of marks scored by the writ petitioner is comparatively higher at the Degree (BDS) level. From the record I find that marks under the head “Educational Qualification” had been awarded by the Selection Committee on pro-rata basis by uniformly applying the criteria in the cases of all the candidates. Therefore, whatever be the criteria followed, the same has not caused any prejudice to the interest of the writ petitioner. Rather, I find that there is a rational basis in awarding the marks in the said category. 18. Coming to the objection raised by Mr Borbora regarding the 2 (two) marks each awarded by the Selection Committee to both the candidates, I find from the record that the respondent no. 6 has annexed experience certificates showing his work experience gathered in a number of private hospitals including Orthodontics Centre Dental Care, Face Care Hospital private Ltd, Kolkata, La-Emi Dental Clinic, Shillong. The respondent no. 6 has annexed experience certificates showing his work experience gathered in a number of private hospitals including Orthodontics Centre Dental Care, Face Care Hospital private Ltd, Kolkata, La-Emi Dental Clinic, Shillong. The respondent no. 5 herein had also issued work Experience Certificate in favour of the respondent no. 6 certifying that he was “Exceptional Orthodontics”. These materials were produced by the respondent no. 6 before the Selection Committee as supporting testimony of his work experience. There is nothing in the advertisement notice or any other Rule to indicate that experience gathered only in a Government College could alone be taken into consideration by the Selection Committee. Even the DCI guidelines do not make any distinction between the experience gathered in a Government Institution and a Private Clinic. Under such circumstances, it is not possible to accept the argument that the marks awarded to the respondent no. 6 on account of experience was without a valid basis. 19. It is a fact that the advertisement notice had clearly indicated that preference would be given to doctors working under Regulation 3(f) of the APSC at the Regional Dental College, Guwahati. In accordance with the said clause, 3 (three) marks had been awarded to the writ petitioner. As noted above, no other candidate except the writ petitioner had been awarded mark under the said category. But notwithstanding the same, the respondent no. 6 ended up scoring higher marks than the writ petitioner on the over all tally, thereby emerging at the top of the merit list. He was, therefore, rightly selected for appointment to the said post and this court does not find any legal justification to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the respondent No. 3 in the matter. 20. From a threadbare scrutiny of the records, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the selection process warranting interference of the same by this Court. In the result, this writ petition is held to be without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. There would be no order as to costs. Records produced by Mr. B. Sinha, learned Standing Counsel, APSC be returned.