JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. Kato, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. T. Tagum, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. I have also heard Mr. D. Panging, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7. 2. It reflects that vide an order dated 21.01.2021, the names of the Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 were struck off. 3. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notification dated 05.03.2018, the minutes of the meeting dated 09.03.2018 as well as to set aside and quash the impugned final result dated 26.03.2018, the entire recruitment process for 4 (four) posts of the Pharmacist in connection with the advertisement dated 05.02.2018 and also for a direction to order a probe into the illegalities committed by the Respondent Authorities. 4. The brief facts of the instant case is that the Director of Health Services, Government of Arunachal Pradesh who is the Respondent No. 2 herein had issued an advertisement in the News Daily “Arunachal Pioneer” dated 07.02.2018 whereby applications were invited for recruitment to the vacant posts mentioned therein under the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. It was the mentioned that the last date for receipt of the duly filled application form was on 26.02.2018. It is relevant for the purpose of the instant case that there were 4 (four) posts of Pharmacist Group-C Non-Gazetted Non-Ministerial to be filled up as per the advertisement and the eligibility criteria mentioned in the said paper advertisement was Class XII (Science) pass with Diploma in Pharmacy and Registration with Pharmacy Council of India or any of its State Branches. This Court vide an order dated 10.12.2021 directed the Standing Counsel for the Health Department representing the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to produce the relevant file before this Court on the next date. 5. It further appears from the order sheet of this case that on 13.05.2022, the learned Standing Counsel for the Health Department had submitted that he had received the relevant file. Today, the learned Standing Counsel has produced before this Court the relevant file. 6. Upon perusal of the said file, it reveals that a detail advertisement under Memo No. MEST-2016/165 dated 05.02.2018 was also issued. Today, the learned Standing Counsel has produced before this Court the relevant file. 6. Upon perusal of the said file, it reveals that a detail advertisement under Memo No. MEST-2016/165 dated 05.02.2018 was also issued. This very advertisement could be seen in Page No. 35, 36 and 37 of the writ petition. A perusal of the said detailed advertisement would show that in Clause 1(iv) the qualification of the Pharmacists were mentioned. As the said has relevance, the same is quoted herein-below: “1(iv). Qualification (Pharmacist) (a) Class XII (Science) passed with Diploma in Pharmacy and registration with Pharmacy Council of India or any of its State Branch. (b) The age of candidate should be between 18-30 years. The upper age limit is relaxable by 5 (five) years in case of APST and 10(ten) years in case of handicapped person. (c) He/She should be a citizen of India.” 7. A perusal of the above clause quoted hereinabove would show that the candidates should be Class XII (Science) Pass with Diploma in Pharmacy and Registration with Pharmacy Council of India or any of its State Branches. The candidates should also be aged between 18-30 years. It was also mentioned that upper age limit is relaxable by 5 (five) years in case of APST and 10 (ten) years in case of handicapped person. It further transpires that the candidate should be a citizen of India. In Clause-3 of the said advertisement, the essential documents to be submitted were mentioned. Clause-3 being relevant is quoted herein-below: “3. Essential documents to be submitted: (a) Attested photocopies of Matriculation certificate/Age proof certificate. (b) Class XII (Science) Passed certificate. (c) Diploma/Degree Certificate in ECG Technology/Dental/Technician/Radiography/ Pharmacy. (d) ST Certificate from competent authority for APST candidates. (e) 2 (two) copies of recent passport size photograph (4.5 cm x 3.5 cm) of the candidate. (f) A Treasury Challan (Non-refundable) for Rs. 100/- for APST candidates. And Rs. 200/- for Non-APST to be credited under the Head of Account-0210-Medical and PH in favour of the Director of Health Services, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun. (g) The candidates should produce the original documents at the time of practical test.” 8. (f) A Treasury Challan (Non-refundable) for Rs. 100/- for APST candidates. And Rs. 200/- for Non-APST to be credited under the Head of Account-0210-Medical and PH in favour of the Director of Health Services, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun. (g) The candidates should produce the original documents at the time of practical test.” 8. From a perusal of the said Clause-3, it would show that the documents which were essentially required to be submitted were attested photocopies of Matriculation certificate/Age proof certificate; Class XII (Science) Passed certificate; Diploma/Degree Certificate in ECG Technology/Dental Technician/Radiography/Pharmacy; ST Certificate from competent authority for APST candidates; 2 (two) copies of recent passport size photograph (4.5 cm x 3.5 cm) of the candidate; a Treasury Challan (Non-refundable) for Rs. 100/- for APST candidates. And Rs. 200/- for Non-APST to be credited under the Head of Account-0210-Medical and PH in favour of the Director of Health Services, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun and the candidates should produce the original documents at the time of practical test. At this stage, it may be relevant herein to mention that there was no mention in the advertisement that the registration certificate with the State Pharmacy Council was an essential document to be submitted. 9. In the backdrop of the above, if this Court takes in the consideration, the facts of the case, it would be seen that the Petitioner in the writ petition have stated that she is unemployed and holds a 2nd Class Diploma in Pharmacy from Mizoram State Council for Technical Education at Regional Institute of Paramedical and Nursing, Aizawl, which she successfully completed in the year 2004. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner had registered herself with Arunachal Pradesh Pharmacy Council, Itanagar and her registration was valid up to 31.12.2020 vide renewal dated 15.02.2016. The said documents have been enclosed to the instant writ petition as Annexure-1 (series). It was also relevant herein to take note from a perusal of the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 that there is no denial to the statements made in Paragraph-2 or have challenged the Diploma Certificate or the Renewal Registration Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner which have been enclosed as Annexure-1 (series). 10. The Petitioner, on the basis of being eligible submitted her application alongwith all the essential documents as stipulated in Clause-3 of the advertisement. 10. The Petitioner, on the basis of being eligible submitted her application alongwith all the essential documents as stipulated in Clause-3 of the advertisement. But to the surprise of the Petitioner, on 05.03.2018, a list was issued by the Respondent No. 2 bearing No. MEST-2016/165 dated 05.03.2016 whereby 6 (six) candidates were shortlisted as eligible whereas the Petitioner was held to be not eligible with the remarks “Pharmacy Council registration wanting hence application rejected.” 11. It further appears that a corrigendum was issued on 07.03.2018 wherein it was mentioned that the Schedule for the written examination for the recruitment to the post of Pharmacists alongwith other posts were to be held on 10.03.2018 and 11.03.2018. The Petitioner on coming to learn about her rejection submitted a representation on 08.03.2018 to the Respondent No. 2 for reconsideration of the list dated 05.03.2018. It was the specific case of the Petitoner in the said representation that the Respondent Authorities had never sought for the Pharmacy Council Registration Certificate. It was also mentioned that as a matter of fact the Petitioner had also made necessary verification with the Officer before submission of the application form who also informed the Petitioner that the submission of the Registration Certificate was not necessary as per the advertisement and as such the Petitioner vide the said representation requested the Respondent No. 2 to allow the Petitioner to participate in the Selection process. 12. As nothing forthcoming happened, the Petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as W.P. (C) No. 116(AP)/2018. This Court vide an order dated 16.03.2018 after taking into consideration the various submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and more particularly, the submissions by the learned Standing Counsel of the Health Department, to the effect that the Petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria by filling the Registration Certificate of Pharmacy Council of India or any of its State Branches for which the committee constituted to scrutinize the applications have rightly rejected the same and duly intimated to the Petitioner in due course of time. This Court further while passing the order dated 16.03.2018 also recorded the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel of the Health Department that he had no objection, if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the authority concerned to consider and dispose of the Petitioner’s representation dated 08.03.2018 within a stipulated time frame. It appears that under such circumstances more particularly taking into account the submissions so made by the learned Standing Counsel Health Department, this Court vide the order dated 16.03.2018 directed the Respondent Authorities and more particularly the Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Director of Health Service, Government of Arunachal Pradesh to consider and dispose of the writ petitioner’s representation dated 08.03.2018 by a reasoned order taking into account all the accompanying facts situations within a period 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order which the Petitioner was directed to furnish within a period of 4 days from the date of the said order. It was further mentioned that till such time the status quo as on 16.03.2018 shall be maintained by the Respondent Authorities in connection with the recruitment process for the 4 posts of Pharmacists in pursuance to the advertisement dated 05.02.2018. 13. The Petitioner submitted the certified copy of the order dated 16.03.2018 on 19.03.2018. On 29.03.2018 a communication was issued by the Respondent No. 2 which the Petitioner claims to have received on 24.04.2018. In the said communication dated 29.03.2018, it was mentioned that the Petitioner’s representation dated 08.03.2018 was examined on 09.03.2018 by the Scrutiny Board and the Board found that the claim of the Petitioner that the Pharmacy Registration Certificate is not mandatory, is misleading as the available advertisement and the details made available to the Petitioner clearly stated that the Pharmacy Registration Certificate is one of the requisite certificate to be submitted. It was further mentioned that the Board’s decision was communicated to the Petitioner in the afternoon of 09.03.2018 stating that the Petitioner’s representation has not been considered due to the reason given in Paragraph-1 of the minutes of the Scrutiny board meeting by Jt. DHS (Estt.) and the minutes of the said Board Meeting was enclosed as Annexure-D to the communication dated 29.03.2018. 14. DHS (Estt.) and the minutes of the said Board Meeting was enclosed as Annexure-D to the communication dated 29.03.2018. 14. At this stage, it may also be relevant herein to mention that on the very date of issuing the communication dated 29.03.2018, the Respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 29.03.2018 wherein it was mentioned that in pursuance to the order dated 16.03.2018 of this Court he had suspended the appointment to the posts of Pharmacists of the recently conducted interview vide advertisement No. MEST-2016/165. It further appears from Annexure-12 (series) of the writ petition that a show cause notice was also issued by the Respondent No. 2 on the ground that there was no initiation of immediate necessary action pursuant to the order dated 16.03.2018 being passed and as such one Mr. T. Nayam Assistant Confidential Branch was directed to explain under which circumstances the dak was kept pending and why action should not be initiated for such lapse. 15. It is the further case of the Petitioner that on 07.04.2018, a contempt application was filed by the Petitioner for deliberate violation to the order dated 16.03.2018 passed in W.P. (C) No. 116(AP)/2018. The said contempt application was registered and numbered as Cont. Case No. 11(AP)/2018. The said contempt application however was closed on the basis that the order dated 29.03.2018 was issued by the Respondent No. 2 in pursuance to the order dated 16.03.2018 passed by this Court. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this order dated 29.03.2018 was received by the Petitioner on 24.04.2018 and it is because of filing of the contempt case against the Respondent No. 2, a back dated order was passed on 29.03.2018. 16. Subsequent thereto, the Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition on 03.09.2018 challenging the notification dated 05.03.2018 whereby the Petitioner was put in the rejection list. The minutes of the meeting dated 09.03.2018 whereby the Petitioner’s representation was rejected, the result dated 26.03.2018 whereby the private respondents herein were shown as the selected candidates as well as also to order a probe into the illegalities committed by the Respondent authorities. This Court vide an order dated 05.09.2018 issued notice and also observed that any recruitment process undertaken by the department concerned shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ proceedings. This Court vide an order dated 05.09.2018 issued notice and also observed that any recruitment process undertaken by the department concerned shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ proceedings. Further to that vide another order dated 22.11.2018, this Court further observed that the recruitment process to the post of Pharmacist shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. 17. I have perused the relevant file produced by the learned Standing Counsel for the Health Department. It shows that pursuant to preparation of the select list on 26.03.2018, the same was set for approval for declaration of the results on the very date. The final select list was prepared and was declared on 26.03.2018 itself. However, in pursuance to the said final select list, none of the Respondents have been appointed in view of the pendency of the instant proceedings. 18. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take into consideration as to whether the rejection of the application of the Petitioner by the Respondents authorities and more particularly by the Respondent No. 2 was justified and the consequent actions of the Respondent authorities in pursuance thereto. As this Court had already noted hereinabove, Clause-3 of the advertisement dated 05.02.2018, had categorically mentioned which were the essential documents to be submitted. Amongst the said documents as mentioned in the Clause-3, the Registration Certificate is not one of such document. It would have been a different case had the Petitioner did not have the Registration Certificate. But a perusal of Annexure-1 (series) which has not been denied by the Respondents as already stated hereinabove would show that the Petitioner had the Registration Certificate issued by the Arunachal Pradesh Pharmacy Council which was initially issued on 15.02.2016 and was valid up till 31.12.2020 and as such as on the date on which the application was submitted i.e. on 26.02.2018, the Petitioner had a valid Registration Certificate. On the ground that Clause-3 specifically stipulated the essential documents which were to be submitted, the Petitioner did not submit the Registration Certificate for which the candidature of the Petitioner could not have been rejected vide the list dated 05.03.2018. 19. The record further transpires that on 08.03.2018, the Petitioner submitted a representation clearly stating inter-alia that as per the advertisement it was not required to submit the Registration Certificate. 19. The record further transpires that on 08.03.2018, the Petitioner submitted a representation clearly stating inter-alia that as per the advertisement it was not required to submit the Registration Certificate. Though a stand has been taken by the Respondents that on 09.03.2018 a committee had rejected the said representation of the Petitioner on the ground that submission of the Registration Certificate was an essential document but the records as produced before this Court does not show any manner that the said decision was intimated to the Petitioner. Be that as it may, this Court in W.P. (C) No. 116(AP)/2018 had passed on order dated 16.03.2018 as already stated hereinabove. This Court while passing the order dated 16.03.2018 took into consideration the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Health Department, who had categorically stated that he had no objection if the Petitioner’s representation is directed to be considered. It is under such circumstances that this Court vide the order dated 16.03.2018 directed the Respondent authorities to consider the said representation submitted by the Petitioner and dispose of the same by a reasoned order. This Court is surprised that even after the order has been passed by this Court, the Respondent No. 2 did not consider the representation but rather on the ground that the Petitioner’s representation has already been disposed off on 09.03.2018, the order dated 29.03.2018 was passed reiterating the same. 20. It is also relevant herein also to take into consideration that on 26.03.2018, the select list was published whereby the private Respondent were shown as the selected candidates. However there has been no appointments so made till now. It is no longer res-integra that the right of a selected candidate in the select list is a right to be considered for appointment and not to be appointed. 21. In the backdrop of the above, this Court looks into the rejection the application of the Petitioner, it would show that the said action on the part of the Respondent authorities was on the face of the illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as Clause-3 did not in any manner stipulate that the Registration Certificate was one of the essential documents to be submitted. The subsequent actions of the further rejection of the representation on 09.03.2018 and further to that the order dated 29.03.2018 is based upon the same reasoning that the Registration Certificate is an essential document but the said document was not as per the advertisement an essential document. On the specific query being made to the learned Standing Counsel for the Health Department, as to what the members in the Board meeting as recorded in the minutes dated 09.03.2018 meant “In the detail documents to be submitted in Serial No. IV(9)” the learned Standing Counsel for the Health Department submitted that from the materials available with him on record, there is no Clause IV(9) in the advertisement. Therefore, it would be seen that the rejection of the application of the Petitioner on the ground of non-submission of the Registration Certificate amounts to malice in law inasmuch as the Respondent authorities have taken into consideration certain irrelevant matters which was not germane to issue and have most illegally and arbitrarily rejected the application of the Petitioner. 22. Consequently, the rejection of the Petitioner vide the order dated 05.03.2018 and the subsequent rejection of the representation dated 09.03.2018 and 29.03.2018 are all bad in law and accordingly set aside and quashed in so far as the Petitioner is concerned. On the basis of the above observations and holding that the rejection of the Petitioner’s application was illegal, the Petitioner is entitled to be considered in pursuance to the application filed by her as per the advertisement dated 05.02.2018. 23. This Court directs the Respondent authorities and more particularly the Respondent No. 2 to permit the Petitioner to sit in a written examination to be held specifically for the Petitioner and thereafter to carry out all the formalities pertaining to the Selection process. In doing so, the Respondent No. 2 is directed to intimate the Petitioner of the date of written examination by giving at least 10 days time. Pursuant to the examination so held, the Petitioner, if found that she has got the required marks more than the candidates which have been mentioned in the select list dated 26.03.2018, a fresh select list shall be prepared by including the name of the Petitioner. Pursuant to the examination so held, the Petitioner, if found that she has got the required marks more than the candidates which have been mentioned in the select list dated 26.03.2018, a fresh select list shall be prepared by including the name of the Petitioner. It is however, clarified that if the Petitioner is not able to secure marks more than the selected candidates in the select list dated 26.03.2018, the Respondent authorities are not required to take any action on the select list prepared on 26.03.2018. 24. The age of the Petitioner to be reckoned shall be the age as on the date of the application filed by the Petitioner pursuant to the advertisement. If necessary, the Respondent Authorities are directed to grant such age relaxation as may be required. 25. It is also directed that the said process be completed by 12.07.2022 and immediately thereafter the persons who have been selected shall be considered for appointment as per law. 26. The relevant files so produced by the learned Standing Counsel for the Health Department is returned. 27. With above observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 28. The Registry is directed to serve a copy of this Judgment to Mr. T. Tagum, the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for effective compliance.