JUDGMENT : Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, J. - Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Dey, learned Standing counsel, Bodoland University, appearing for respondent No. 3, Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, Education (Higher) Department, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as projected in the writ petition is that she had completed her graduation with First Class in Zoology from North Eastern Hills University (NEHU), Shillong, in the year 2006 and, thereafter, had also completed her post-graduation in Zoology from the same university. She had also appeared in Joint CSIR-UGC Test for Junior Research Fellowship and Eligibility for Lecturer ship (NET) held on 18.12.2011 and had cleared NET in the subject of Life Science. On 06.03.2012, an advertisement was issued by the Registrar, Bodoland University, inviting applications from eligible candidates having UGC norms for filling up of posts of Assistant Professor in various departments, including one post of Micro Biology, one post of Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology, one post of Biochemistry and one post of Animal Biotechnology in the Department of Biotechnology. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology. The petitioner was asked to appear before the Selection Committee on 27.07.2012 for interview through call letter dated 03.07.2012. The interview was deferred and was re-scheduled on 29.08.2012 and the petitioner had duly appeared in the said interview. However, the result of the interview was not published for a long time and when the petitioner visited the office of the respondent No. 3 in the later part of September, 2012, she came to learn that the respondent authorities had appointed four Assistant Professors in the Department of Biotechnology and that the post for Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology had also been filled up without publishing the result and/or publishing select list. The petitioner took recourse to Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, "RTI Act") by filing an application on 26.09.2012 seeking the result-sheet and the names of the selected candidates in the Department of Biotechnology. The petitioner took recourse to Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, "RTI Act") by filing an application on 26.09.2012 seeking the result-sheet and the names of the selected candidates in the Department of Biotechnology. The petitioner came to learn subsequently that the respondent No. 4 had been appointed as Assistant Professor, Animal Biotechnology, although the lone post of Animal Biotechnology, which had been notified in the advertisement, was filled up by appointing one Sandip Das. It is projected by the petitioner in the writ petition that selection for the posts of Assistant Professor which were to be made as per UGC regulations, 2010, had been conducted in a pre-determined and pre-conceived manner only to accommodate respondent No. 4 and, that too, without publishing any select list. 3. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing the order of appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Assistant Professor, Animal Biotechnology, with a further prayer for a direction to publish the select list in respect of the post of Assistant Professor, Biotechnology with specialization in Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology and to fill up the post as per the select list prepared pursuant to the interview held on 29.08.2012. 4. Respondent No. 3, i.e., Registrar, Bodoland University, in his affidavit has stated that the petitioner as well as one Joydeep Mandal had appeared in the interview for the post of Assistant Professor of Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology and Joydeep Mandal was found to be better than the petitioner and that in the merit list, the rank of the petitioner was below than that of Joydeep Mandal. However, though Joydeep Mandal was found to be better than the petitioner, both the petitioner and Joydeep Mandal were not found up to the mark in the interview. It is pleaded that there is no provision of publication of result/select list and the selected candidates were informed about the selection after the recommendations of the Selection Committee were approved by the Executive Council and an order dated 24.09.2012 was issued appointing the selected candidates as Assistant Professors. 5. In paragraph 5 (B) of the affidavit of respondent No. 3, it is stated as follows: "(B) That the subject of Biotechnology consists of many chapter viz, Bio-resource, Environmental Biotechnology, Biochemistry etc. There is no strict compartmentalization among different chapters. Four posts of Assistant Professors in the subject of Biotechnology were advertised by the Bodoland University. 5. In paragraph 5 (B) of the affidavit of respondent No. 3, it is stated as follows: "(B) That the subject of Biotechnology consists of many chapter viz, Bio-resource, Environmental Biotechnology, Biochemistry etc. There is no strict compartmentalization among different chapters. Four posts of Assistant Professors in the subject of Biotechnology were advertised by the Bodoland University. There were four areas of specialization being one each for one post. However, the Selection Committee could not select any candidate with specialization of Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology since both the candidates who appeared in the interview were not up to the mark in respect of performance/merit having no definite specialization in Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology. Hence, a candidate named Miss Sharmistha Brahma Kour (Respondent No. 4) who had definite specialization in Bio-resource (as evidenced in the certificate at Annexure-II) and performed very well in the interview was selected. The Selection Committee considered that the said candidate could be utilized for teaching both Bio-resource and Animal Biotechnology, and was selected for the post. A copy of Certificate of definite specialization in Bioresource of Miss Sharmistha Brahma Kour from D.K. Sharma, Prof. & Coordinator, BIF, GU, is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-II." 6. The further stand taken in the affidavit is that respondent No. 4 was found to be relatively better and conversant in the discipline of Bio-resource and, therefore, she was selected and appointed as Assistant Professor as she would be able to teach Bio-resource and other aspects of Animal Biotechnology. It is categorically stated therein that the post of Assistant Professor in Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology was not filled up as the Selection Committee could not select any candidate for Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology. In the affidavit, the procedure adopted for selection is also indicated. 7. An affidavit-in-opposition was also filed by respondent No. 4. In the said affidavit, the respondent No. 4 raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the appointment of the respondent No. 4 in view of the fact that the petitioner had applied for the post of Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology and the respondent No. 4 had applied for the post of Animal Biotechnology. It is further pleaded that even if the petitioner could have prayed for cancellation of the appointment of the respondent No. 4, then also the writ petition suffers from mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party as other selected candidates were not arrayed as parties. It is also pleaded that the respondent No. 4 had specialization in Bio-resource and that there is no strict compartmentalization in the subject of Biotechnology and that it is not a case where the respondent No. 4 had been appointed beyond the advertised vacancy. 8. The petitioner had filed a reply-affidavit to the affidavit of respondent No. 3. In the said reply affidavit, it is stated, amongst others, that according to the petitioner, there are altogether four posts in the Department of Biotechnology in the Bodoland University and, therefore, with the appointment of the respondent No. 4, no Assistant Professor for Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology can be appointed as there is no available vacancy. 9. Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that Bodoland University had issued advertisement for filling up four posts of Assistant Professors in the Department of Biotechnology with four different specializations as there was need for specialized person to teach different specializations and, therefore, it cannot be contended by the respondents that there is no strict compartmentalization. It is submitted that when there is specific mention in the advertisement that one post was earmarked for Animal Biotechnology, the respondent University could not have appointed two Assistant Professors in the specialization of Animal Biotechnology and, thus, ex facie, the appointment of respondent No. 4 was in excess of the advertised vacancy in the specialization of Animal Biotechnology. He also submits that there could not have been any occasion for comparison of inter-se merit of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 as they had applied for different specializations. Having regard to the fact that there were only four posts available in the Department of Biotechnology, there is none amongst the Assistant Professors to teach the specialized discipline of Bio-resource/ Environmental Biotechnology, which is definitely not in the best interest of the students. It is also contended that post of Assistant Professor, Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology could not have been utilized for appointment of respondent No. 4 as Assistant Professor in Animal Biotechnology. It is also contended that post of Assistant Professor, Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology could not have been utilized for appointment of respondent No. 4 as Assistant Professor in Animal Biotechnology. It is further submitted by him that in case the candidates appearing for selection for the post of Assistant Professor in the discipline of Environmental Biotechnology were not found to be suitable, the authorities were required to re-advertise the post. 10. Mr. Choudhury has submitted that the plea taken by the Bodoland University that there is no requirement for publication of the selection list is without any merit and the authorities are always duty bound to publish the result of the selection process by publishing the select list. In this connection, he has relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Kumar Promod Narayan Singh and Ors., reported in (1997) 5 SCC 298 . 11. Abiding by the stand taken in the affidavit, Mr. K. K. Dey, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that total four numbers of posts were sought to be filled up in the rank of Assistant Professor in the Department of Biotechnology and the contention advanced by Mr. Choudhury that the appointment of respondent No. 4 is illegal is not tenable in law as the respondent University had not appointed more than four Assistant Professors. The Selection Committee found that the respondent No. 4 could teach both Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology as well as Animal Biotechnology and, therefore, she was appointed as Assistant Professor in Animal Biotechnology. He has submitted that the Gauhati University had allotted 33 posts of Assistant Professors for all the departments. He has also produced, during the course of the arguments, the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 29.08.2012. 12. Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has endorsed the arguments advanced by Mr. Dey. He has also submitted that the Selection Committee was justified in recommending the respondent No. 4 for appointment, when none of the candidates who had applied for Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology was found to be fit, taking note of the fact that the respondent No. 4 had specialization in Bio-resource. He contends that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of selected candidates who are necessary parties. He contends that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of selected candidates who are necessary parties. Accordingly, the appointment of respondent No. 4 need not be interfered with as the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference, he submits. 13. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 14. The relevant portion of the advertisement dated 06.03.2012 pertaining to Biotechnology reads as follows: "Biotechnology - Number of Posts-4 Specialization - (a) 1 post - Micro Biology (b) 1 post - Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology (c) 1 post - Biochemistry and (d) 1 post - Animal Biotechnology". 15. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had applied for one post of Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology while the respondent No. 4 had applied for the lone post of Animal Biotechnology, as advertised. 16. Annexure-6 of the affidavit of respondent No. 3, dated 19.12.2011, goes to show that the Gauhati University accorded no objection in transferring vacant posts numbering 93, out of 118 posts of Gauhati University, Kokrajhar Campus, to Bodoland University. A list of the vacant posts under the head "Non-Plan", which is annexed to the said letter, goes to show that there were, amongst others, 18 posts of Associate Professor and 13 posts of Assistant Professor. The minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 29.08.2012 for selection of Associate Professor/Assistant Professor in Biotechnology in Bodoland University records that there are 2 and 4 vacancies of Associate Professor and Assistant Professor, respectively, in the Department of Biotechnology. Thus, it appears that out of the aforesaid allotted posts, the Bodoland University had distributed different number of posts of Associate Professor and Assistant Professor to various departments. Materials on record do not disclose as to how many posts of Associate Professor and Assistant Professor were earmarked and allotted for the Department of Biotechnology. The petitioner contended that, according to her information, only 4 posts of Assistant Professor had been allotted for the Department of Biotechnology. The minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 29.08.2012 goes to show that there were 4 vacant posts of Assistant Professor in the Department of Biotechnology. How many Assistant Professors were already in the Department of Biotechnology is not discernible from the said minutes. The minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 29.08.2012 goes to show that there were 4 vacant posts of Assistant Professor in the Department of Biotechnology. How many Assistant Professors were already in the Department of Biotechnology is not discernible from the said minutes. The Selection Committee recorded as follows: "As no suitable candidate was found in the subject paper of Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology, the Selection Committee recommended Ms. Sharmistha Brahma Kour from Animal Biotechnology for the post of Assistant Professor. 1. Ms. Jonali Wary - Asst. Prof. - Micro Biology. 2. Dr. Sandip Das - Asst. Prof. - Animal Biotechnology. 3. Jatin Sarma - Asst. Prof.- Biochemistry. 4. Ms. Sharmistha Brahma Kour - Asst. Prof.- Animal Biotechnology." 17. The recommendation of the Selection Committee contained the remarks "Woman", "General", "General", "ST(P)", respectively, against the aforesaid names. 18. The Bodoland University authorities, as it clearly appears, had advertised 4 posts of Assistant Professor in the Department of Biotechnology with four different specializations. Having spelt out the specializations in the advertisement, which is the basis for conducting the entire selection process and based on which applications were invited and interview conducted, it is too late in the day to contend that there is no compartmentalization in the specialized disciplines in Biotechnology. If there were no compartmentalization, why invite applications by way of advertisement for four different specializations? The authorities could have simply advertised that four posts of Assistant Professor are required to be filled up in the Department of Biotechnology. Having clearly identified the specializations in the advertisement, the authorities cannot now turn around and say that they can fill up all the four posts in any manner as they think fit and proper. It is well established that an authority cannot make any selection/appointment beyond the post advertised. When specific numbers of posts were advertised for each specialization, the authorities cannot appoint more than the number specified in respect of that specialization. 19. It appears from the photocopy of the records made available to the Court that the interviews were held on the basis of specialization. In respect of the specialization "Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology" three candidates were interviewed. When specific numbers of posts were advertised for each specialization, the authorities cannot appoint more than the number specified in respect of that specialization. 19. It appears from the photocopy of the records made available to the Court that the interviews were held on the basis of specialization. In respect of the specialization "Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology" three candidates were interviewed. Whether the respondent No. 4 has specialization in the subject of Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology could not have arisen for consideration inasmuch as she never submitted any application for consideration for the post of Assistant Professor in Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology and, therefore, she was also not interviewed for such specialization. When she was not interviewed for specialization "Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology", obviously, the question of inter-se comparison with the petitioner in that discipline, assuming that the respondent No. 4 had any such specialization, cannot not arise. Though no select list was prepared, it appears that Dr. Sandip Das had secured more marks than respondent No. 4 in the interview held for the specialization "Animal Biotechnology". At the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that only one post of Assistant Professor in the specialization in Animal Biotechnology was notified in the advertisement and one Dr. Sandip Das, having secured the highest mark, had already been selected for the aforesaid post. The respondent No. 4 was appointed as a 2nd Assistant Professor in Animal Biotechnology and, therefore, in the attending facts and circumstances, it cannot be construed that the other selected and appointed candidates are necessary parties. 20. In the affidavit of respondent No. 3, a categorical statement is made in paragraph 8 thereof that the post of Assistant Professor in Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology was not filled up. However, in absence of any material laid by the University and having regard to the averments made by the petitioner that there are only 4 posts of Assistant Professor in the Department of Biotechnology, it is not known whether, even though the post of Assistant Professor in the discipline of Bio-resource was not filled up, it is now possible to fill up the said post. 21. 21. Going by the stand taken in the affidavit of the respondents, it would appear that the post meant for specialization in Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology was not filled up and was diverted to appoint the respondent No. 4 as 2nd Assistant Professor in Animal Biotechnology, thus, exhausting the total number of 4 posts advertised for Assistant Professor. Having professed to fill up the post by candidate having specialization in Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology, as indicated in the advertisement, the Selection Committee could not have proceeded to select and recommend the respondent No. 4 for appointment as Assistant Professor in Animal Biotechnology beyond the notified vacancy using in the process the post earmarked for specialization in Bio-resource/Environment Biotechnology. The University authorities also could not have acted upon such recommendation to appoint respondent No. 4 beyond the notified post. The mandate of the Selection Committee was to select candidates in terms of the advertisement. However, in the instant case it appears that the Selection Committee recommended appointment of respondent No. 4 as Assistant Professor in Animal Biotechnology in addition to the 1st selected candidate although only one post of Assistant Professor in Animal Biotechnology was advertised. If there was no suitable candidate available for the post of Assistant Professor with specialization in Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology, the only course of action that was available for the University authorities was to re-advertise the post of Assistant Professor with specialization in Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology. 22. In Kumar Pramod Narayan Singh (supra), which is relied upon by Mr. Choudhury, the Supreme Court had observed that when a Government council or board selects candidates, normally a panel is prepared in the order of merit and, then, recommendation is made to the Government for appointment to the post advertised. The ratio of the case may not fully apply to the facts of this case. But it goes without saying that when a selection process is undertaken, it is always desirable that a select list is published as such a step attaches more credibility to the selection process. 23. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 cannot be sustained in law and ends of justice will be sub-served if the university authorities are directed to re-advertise the post of Assistant Professor of Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology and to fill up the same in accordance with law. 24. 24. In view of the above, the appointment of respondent No. 4 is set aside and quashed. The University authorities are directed to re-advertise the post of Assistant Professor with specialization in Bio-resource/Environmental Biotechnology and to fill up the same in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 25. Writ petition is allowed in terms of the above observations and directions. No cost.