JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is challenging the appointment of 5th respondent as Cath Lab Technician/Cardio Vascular Technologist Grade-II (Invasive) and claims that the petitioner is eligible for appointment and seeks appointment in place of the 5th respondent. 2. The petitioner has completed his B.Sc., in the year 2005 and Post Graduate Diploma in ECG and CVT Technology-2 years Course from the 1st respondent-University in the year 2008. The petitioner as on the date of filing of the writ petition has an overall experience of six years as Cath Lab Technician/Cardio Vascular Technologist Grade-II (invasive). 3. The 1st respondent issued a notification on 29/8/2009 inviting applications for the post of ECG Technicians. Eight posts were proposed to be filled upthe posts were reserved for various categories such as SC (W) - 01, SC - 01, ST - 01, BC-B (W) - 01, OC (W) - 01 and OC - 03. The requisite qualification was two years of experience apart from having the required academic qualifications. In pursuance of the said notification only OC posts were filled up and the remaining posts were not filled up. Another notification was issued by the 1st respondent on 19/1/2013 inviting applications for the post of Cath Lab Technician/Cardio Vascular Technologist Grade-II (Invasive), five posts were advertised with the following reservation. BC-A (W) - 01, OC (W) - 01, SC - 01, ST (W) - 01, OC - 01. As per the notification, the applicants must have one year experience in the fieldfrom any reputed corporate hospital having comparable laboratory facilities as that of SVIMS (Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences), apartfrom the post for which the petitioner has applied, the notification was issued calling for filling up the posts of other paramedical staff and sub-staff in the 1st respondent/hospital. 4. The petitioner claims that the 5th respondent did not meet the requirement as per the notification with respect to having the requisite experience of one year. The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit and also the information obtained under the Right to Information Act whereby the Personal Manager and APIO of the 1st respondent has furnished the information sought for by the petitioner.The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the 5th respondent was awarded zero marks for experience and the petitioner was awarded nine marks. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the 5th respondent did not qualify for application on the ground of lack of experience, entertaining her application and selecting her is definitely against the requirements and qualifications as mentioned in the notification. 5. Therespondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed the counter and also an additional counter. It is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the respondents that the petitioner secured only two marks in the interview out of twenty, whereas the 5th respondent has got fifteen marks in the interview and as such she was selected on merit. The respondents have filed a counter to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner and have stated that the 5th respondent also qualified in so far as the experience aspect is concerned as the 5th respondent nearly had one year of experience by the date on which the interview was conducted. It is submitted by the Standing Counsel for the respondents that the notification dtd. 19/1/2013 and the interview was conducted on 8/1/2014 i.e., nearly one year after the notification. As such, a common decision was taken by the management on representation of some SC Candidates including the 5th respondent to consider their candidature even though they did not possess the required experience at the time of submitting the application. It is also submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the 5th respondent was permitted to appear the interview and was selected for the said post. 6. This Court summoned the file relating to the selections for post the petitioner had applied for in pursuance of notification dtd. 19/1/2013. The same is placed before this court for perusal by the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. The 5th respondent did not qualify for making an application in pursuance of the said notification as she did not have the requisite experience of one year as mandated in the notification. However, the 5th respondent was selected ignoring the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that experience as on the date of notification would be relevant and experience as on the date of interview cannot be considered as was considered in the case of the 5th respondent. However, the 5th respondent was selected ignoring the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that experience as on the date of notification would be relevant and experience as on the date of interview cannot be considered as was considered in the case of the 5th respondent. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the 5th respondent could not have applied for the post as she did not meet the required experience qualification and the respondents 1 and 2 ought not to have called the 5th respondent for interview and her application ought to have been rejected by the respondents 1 and 2. 8. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent has not filed any counter, however argued that the 5th respondent gained experience and has good skill which is required for a Technician and it is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent that the 5th respondent has been discharging her duty to the best satisfaction of the doctors at the hospital and the management as a whole from the date of her appointment. He further submits that she has now completed more than nine years of service in the 1st respondent institute and prays that she should not be dislodged from the post on account of the decision taken by the respondents 1 and 2 about 10 years back. 9. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and after having gone through the material available on record and also the file relating to the selection of Cath Lab Technician/Cardio Vascular Technologist Grade-II (invasive)this Court has no hesitation to hold that the respondents 1 and 2 have flouted the qualifications required in the notification dtd. 19/1/2013, in so far as selection of the 5th respondent for the post of Cath Lab Technician/Cardio Vascular Technologist Grade-II (Invasive). 10. Considering the continuous service of the 5th respondent, this Court is not inclined to dislodge the 5th respondent, however to meet the equities this Court hereby directs the respondents 1 and 2 to accommodate the petitioner as Cath Lab Technician/Cardio Vascular Technologist Grade-II (invasive) or any other post for which the petitioner is eligible and issue the necessary orders of appointment within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. No costs. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.