JUDGMENT : ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. 1. These bunch of cases raise similar questions of law and fact and have been heard together. They are thus being disposed of by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 580 of 2023 filed by Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) is taken as the lead case. 2. All the petitioners/appellants in this bunch undisputedly possess minimum qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in a recognized university or the degree colleges affiliated to it. The qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor is prescribed by the UGC regulations notified on 18.7.2018, titled as University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’). The post of Assistant Professor as per the regulations is to be filled by way of direct recruitment. Clause 4 of the regulations, in so far as it deals with appointment on the post of Assistant Professor, is extracted hereinafter: “4.0 Direct Recruitment 4.1 For the Disciplines of Arts, Commerce, Humanities, Education, Law, Social Science, Sciences, Languages, Library Science, Physical Education, and Journalism and Mass Communication. (I) Assistant Professor: Eligibility (A or B): (A) (i) A Master’s degree with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point-scale wherever the grading system is followed) in a concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university. (I) Assistant Professor: Eligibility (A or B): (A) (i) A Master’s degree with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point-scale wherever the grading system is followed) in a concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university. (ii) Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC or the CSIR, or a similar test accredited by the UGC, like SLET/SET or who are or have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil./Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 or 2016 and their amendments from time to time as the case may be exempted from NET/SLET/SET: Provided, the candidates registered for the Ph.D. programme prior to July 11, 2009, shall be governed by the provisions of the then existing Ordinances/Bye-laws/Regulations of the Institution awarding the degree and such Ph.D. candidates shall be exempted from the requirement of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions: (a) The Ph.D. degree of the candidate has been awarded in a regular mode. (b) The Ph.D. thesis has been evaluated by at least two external examiners. (c) An open Ph.D. viva voce of the candidate has been conducted. (d) The candidate has published two research papers from his/her Ph.D. work, out of which at least one is in a referred journal. (e) The candidate has presented at least two papers based on his/her Ph.D. work in conferences/seminars sponsored/funded/supported by the UGC/ICSSR/CSIR or any similar agency. The fulfilment of these conditions is to be certified by the Registrar or the Dean (Academic Affairs) of the University concerned. Note: NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Masters Programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC, like SLET/SET. OR (B) The Ph.D. degree has been obtained from a foreign university/institution with a ranking among top 500 in the World University Ranking (at any time) by any one of the following: (i) Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) (ii) the Times Higher Education (THE) or (iii) the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) of the Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Shanghai). OR (B) The Ph.D. degree has been obtained from a foreign university/institution with a ranking among top 500 in the World University Ranking (at any time) by any one of the following: (i) Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) (ii) the Times Higher Education (THE) or (iii) the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) of the Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Shanghai). Note: The Academic score as specified in Appendix II (Table 3A) for Universities, and Appendix II (Table 3B) for Colleges, shall be considered for short-listing of the candidates for interview only and the selections shall be based only on the performance in the interview.” 3. The regulations also provide for selection committee for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. The procedure for selection is also specified in the regulations. Assessment criteria for determining merit as also its methodology are specified in the regulations. Clause 10 of the regulations then provide for counting of past service for direct recruitment and promotion under career advancement scheme. This clause though does not appear to have any relevance for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, by direct recruitment, but since clause 10(f)(iii) is applied for short-listing of candidates to be called for interview and is also challenged in some of the petitions, therefore, it has become necessary to refer to it. Clause 10 of the regulations is extracted hereinafter: “10.0 Counting of Past Services for Direct Recruitment and Promotion under CAS Previous regular service, whether national or international, as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent in a University, College, National Laboratories or other scientific/professional organisations such as the CSIR, ICAR. DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR, ICMR and DBT, should count for the direct recruitment and promotion under the CAS of a teacher as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or any other nomenclature, provided that: (a) The essential qualifications of the post held were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, as the case may be. (b) The post is/was in an equivalent grade or of the pre-revised scale of pay as the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer), Associate Professor (Reader) and Professor. (c) The concerned Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor should possess the same minimum qualifications as prescribed by the UGC for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, as the case may be. (c) The concerned Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor should possess the same minimum qualifications as prescribed by the UGC for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, as the case may be. (d) The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down in the Regulations of the University/State Government/Central Government/Institutions concerned, for such appointments. (e) The previous appointment was not as guest lecturer for any duration. (f) the previous Ad-hoc or Temporary or contractual service (by whatever nomenclature it may be called) shall be counted for direct recruitment and for promotion, provided that: (i) the essential qualifications of the post held were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, as the case may be. (ii) the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of a duly constituted Selection Committee/Selection Committee constituted as per rules of the respective university; (iii) the incumbent was drawing total gross emoluments not less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, as the case may be; and (g) No distinctions shall be made with reference to the nature of management of the institution where previous service was rendered (private/local body/Government) while counting the past service under this clause.” 4. The regulations also specify the criteria to be followed for applicants to be shortlisted for interview for the post of Assistant Professors. Table 3A of the regulations, describing the criteria for short-listing, is extracted hereinafter: Table: 3A Criteria for Short-listing of Candidates for Interview for the Post of Assistant Professors in Universities S. No. Academic Record Score 1. Graduation 80% and Above = 15 60% to less than 80% = 13 55% to less than 60% = 10 45% to less than 55% = 05 2. Post Graduation 80% and Above = 25 60% to less than 80% = 13 55% (50% in case of SC/ST/OBC (non-creamy layer) PWD) to less than 60% = 220 3. M.Phil. 60% and Above = 07 55% to less than 60% = 05 4. Ph.D. 30 5. NET with JRF 07 NET 05 SLET/SET 03 6. Research Publications (2 marks for each research publications published in Peer-Reviewed for UGC-listed journals) 10 7. M.Phil. 60% and Above = 07 55% to less than 60% = 05 4. Ph.D. 30 5. NET with JRF 07 NET 05 SLET/SET 03 6. Research Publications (2 marks for each research publications published in Peer-Reviewed for UGC-listed journals) 10 7. Teaching/Post Doctoral Experience (2 marks for one year each) [However, if the period of teaching/ Post-doctoral experience is less than one year then the marks shall be reduced proportionately] 10 8. Awards International/National Level (Awards given by International Organisations/Government of India/Government of India recognized National Level Bodies) 03 State-Level (Awards given by State Government) 02 Note: (A) (i) M.Phil + Ph.D Maximum - 30 marks (ii) JRF/NET/SET Maximum - 07 marks (iii) In awards category Maximum - 03 marks (B) Number of candidates to be called for interview shall be decided by the concerned universities: (C) Academic Score -80 Research Publications -10 (D) Score shall be valid for appointment in respective State SLET/SET Universities/Colleges/Institutions only. 5. All the petitioners/appellants have applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor pursuant to the advertisements issued by the University of Allahabad or its constituent colleges. The petitioners/appellants are aggrieved by non-inclusion of their names in the short-listed candidates to be called for interview. The petitioners apparently have not been awarded any marks on account of their teaching/post doctoral experience in terms of clause 7 of table 3A as their teaching experience is not in consonance with regulation 10(f)(iii). Petitioners consequently urge that regulation 10(f)(iii) be not applied while computing marks admissible against clause 7 of table 3A of the regulations or else regulation 10(f)(iii) be held ultra-vires. It is also submitted that in the event proper marks were accorded to them for their teaching experience in terms of clause 7 of table 3A then they would qualify to be short-listed for interview. 6. The petitioners assert that though they have requisite teaching experience yet ten marks available to them, as per clause 7 of table 3A have been denied to them by misreading and misapplying the provisions of the UGC regulations, inasmuch as the criteria specified for counting past services for appointment or promotion under career advancement scheme has no applicability while calculating marks as per clause 7 of table 3A. It is thus urged that clause 10 of the regulations apply in entirely different eventuality and has erroneously been applied in the facts of the present case. 7. It is thus urged that clause 10 of the regulations apply in entirely different eventuality and has erroneously been applied in the facts of the present case. 7. In leading writ petition no. 580 of 2023, the petitioner has sought a declaration that regulation 10(f)(iii) of Regulations be declared ultra-vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Clause (B)(viii) of the General Instructions issued by respondent no. 4, in that regard, is also assailed. Prayer is also made to command the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit pursuant to advertisement dated 28.11.2022. 8. Special Appeal Defective No. 187 of 2022 is also filed by the petitioner in the leading case challenging a judgment of learned Single Judge dated 20.5.2022 dismissing her writ petition no. 7114 of 2022. Learned Single Judge had refused the prayer made for award of marks for teaching while short-listing the candidates to be called for interview relying upon regulation 10(e) & (f)(iii) of the regulations. The petitioners working as guest faculty at Allahabad University has been overlooked in view of regulation 10(e) while her working in PG College affiliated to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University has not been counted towards teaching experience as her contractual appointment did not allow her salary in terms of regulation 10(f)(iii) of the regulations. Learned Single Judge also observed that the relevant regulations, in that regard, were otherwise not challenged. It is apparently to get over this observation that the lead case has been filed challenging the regulations. 9. Special Appeal Defective No. 257 of 2022 has been filed by petitioner Brahma Deo claiming marks on account of teaching experience. Learned Single Judge vide his order dated 20.5.2022 dismissed the writ relying upon the judgment of the date rendered in Writ (A) No. 7114 of 2022 filed by the lead petitioner Geetanjali Pandey. The judgment of learned Single Judge is thus assailed in the special appeal. 10. Lead petitioner had earlier filed Writ (A) No. 16585 of 2022 challenging regulation 10(f)(iii) as also the consequential clauses (iv) and (v) of the General Instructions contained in the advertisement dated 10.9.2022. This writ has been dismissed on the ground that the judgment of learned Single Judge in Writ (A) No. 7114 of 2022 was already challenged in special appeal defective no. This writ has been dismissed on the ground that the judgment of learned Single Judge in Writ (A) No. 7114 of 2022 was already challenged in special appeal defective no. 187 of 2022 and leave was also sought, therein, to challenge regulation 10(f)(iii). Writ Petition No. 16585 of 2022 accordingly was not entertained. Liberty, however, was granted to the petitioner to press her special appeal or the application for grant of leave. A review application no. 398 of 2023 has been filed to review the judgment and order dated 2.8.2023 dismissing writ petition no. 16585 of 2022. This review is also connected in this bunch of petitions. 11. Clause 10(f)(iii) provides that only such services shall be counted where the incumbent was drawing total gross emoluments not less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. The benefit of past services would not be extended if the salary drawn by the teacher/Assistant Professor is less than the gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. It is for this reason that petitioners/appellants have challenged regulation 10(f)(iii) of the UGC regulations, 2018 and a declaration has been sought that it is ultra-vires Article 14 to the Constitution of India. A prayer has also been made to quash clause b(viii) of the General Instructions issued by respondent no. 4 Ishwar Saran Degree College. Clause b(viii) is reproduced hereinafter: “(viii) Minimum Educational Qualifications: (a) The applicant must fulfil the essential requirements for desired post (Assistant Professor and College Librarian) and other conditions stipulated in the UGC REGULATIONS ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2018 with subsequent amendments made from time to time, before the first date of publication of Advertisement. (b) Applicants are advised to satisfy themselves before applying, that they possess the essential qualifications laid down for the posts, as on the last date of submission of Online Application Form. No enquiry asking for advice as to eligibility will be entertained.” 12. In the leading writ petition of Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey), it is asserted that petitioner has applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit in Allahabad Degree College, a constituent college of University of Allahabad. The petitioner has graduated in Sanskrit as one of the subjects in 1996 and possesses a post-graduate degree in Sanskrit (Ved). In the leading writ petition of Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey), it is asserted that petitioner has applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit in Allahabad Degree College, a constituent college of University of Allahabad. The petitioner has graduated in Sanskrit as one of the subjects in 1996 and possesses a post-graduate degree in Sanskrit (Ved). She has also done her Phd in the year 2003-2007 from Deen Dayal Upadhayay University, Gorakhpur and has also qualified NET in Sanskrit. The petitioner asserts that she has teaching experience of contractual post from Jawad Ali Shah Imambara Girls P.G. College, Gorakhpur where she was appointed on 15.10.2004 and she has served in the said institution upto 21.7.2010. The petitioner also claims that she has teaching experience as a guest faculty at the University of Allahabad for the academic year 2017-2018. 13. Respondent no. 4 Ishwar Saran Degree College issued an advertisement No. ISDC/01/2022 dated 10.9.2022 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in various subjects. Petitioner’s name has, however, not been included in the list of eligible candidates to be called for interview apparently on the ground that she does not satisfy the condition laid down in regulation 10(f)(iii) of the 2018 regulations for her past teaching experience to be counted in terms of clause 7 of table 3A. 14. Writ petition No. 71141 of 2022, filed by the petitioner, challenging her non-inclusion in the short-listed candidates to be called for interview came to be dismissed on 20.5.2022 on the ground that regulation 10(f)(iii) had not been challenged. Aggrieved by the said judgment the petitioner has preferred Special Appeal Defective No. 580 of 2023 by moving an application for grant of leave. The petitioner has also challenged the vires of regulation 10(f)(iii). A separate petition has also been filed with the prayer to declare 10(f)(iii) of regulations as ultra-vires. 15. Counter affidavits are filed by the respondents contending that UGC regulations are binding upon the institutions and the petitioner-appellants were not entitled to award of marks for their teaching experience since the salary paid to them was below the salary admissible for the post of Assistant Professor by virtue of regulation 10(f)(iii). Respondents contend that the salary received by the petitioner as a guest lecturer and as a teacher of the PG college at Gorakhpur was much below the salary admissible to a Assistant Professor. 16. Respondents contend that the salary received by the petitioner as a guest lecturer and as a teacher of the PG college at Gorakhpur was much below the salary admissible to a Assistant Professor. 16. We have heard Sri Alok Kumar Yadav and Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellants and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi for the University Grants Commission; Sri Kunal Ravi Singh and Sri Ankur Agarwal have appeared for the University of Allahabad and its affiliated colleges and have perused the materials on record. 17. The short question raised in this bunch of petitions is as to whether regulation 10(f)(iii) would be applicable while awarding marks for the teaching/post-doctoral experience, in terms of clause 7 of table 3A for shortlisting of candidates, to be called for interview for the post of Assistant Professors in universities? As a sequel, it has to be seen as to whether regulation 10(f)(iii) is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 18. It is undisputed between the parties that qualification and criteria for direct recruitment to a university, duly established as per law, would be determined by the UGC regulations. It is otherwise settled in law that UGC regulations would prevail in the matter of recruitment of teaching staff in a recognized university. [See Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs. State of Gujarat, (2022) 5 SCC 179 ] 19. Regulation 4 provides the qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. Since the appointment of Assistant Professor is an entry level appointment as such no past/previous experience on such posts is required towards eligibility under the regulations. A candidate having requisite academic qualification as per the regulation can thus be appointed as Assistant Professor even if he/she has no previous teaching experience. 20. For appointment to the post of Associate Professor or Professor the regulations require specified length of requisite previous teaching experience on the post of Assistant Professor in case of Associate Professor and Associate Professor in case of appointment to the post of Professor. This requirement is specified in regulation 4.0 (II) & (III) of the regulations. 21. Regulation 10 specifies the nature of past services to be counted for direct recruitment and also for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme. This requirement is specified in regulation 4.0 (II) & (III) of the regulations. 21. Regulation 10 specifies the nature of past services to be counted for direct recruitment and also for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme. Clause (e) & (f) of regulation 10 are already extracted above which provide that teaching experience as a guest lecturer or previous working where the total gross emoluments was less than the gross monthly salary of the Assistant Professor would not be counted towards past services for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor. 22. A combined reading of clause (e) & (f) of regulation 10 undisputedly reveal that past services to be counted for direct recruitment or promotion must not be as guest lecturer for any duration; the essential qualifications of the post held was not lower than the qualification prescribed by UGC for Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, as the case may be; appointment was on the recommendation of a duly constituted selection committee as per applicable rules of the university; the incumbent drew total gross emoluments not less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, as the case may be. 23. The counting of past services under regulation 10, however, would be relevant and directly co-related to the post on which direct appointment or promotion under CAS itself is sought. Since, past services are required for appointment to the post of Associate Professor and Professor only in the regulations, the relevance of regulation 10 would be restricted to these posts alone. 24. No previous teaching experience (including Assistant Professor) since is required as eligibility condition for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, as such regulation 10 would have no direct applicability/relevance for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. 25. Eligibility for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor is distinct from the criteria to be followed for short-listing of candidates to be called for interview for the post of Assistant Professor. 26. Table 3A appended to the regulations lays down the criteria for shortlisting of candidates to be called for interview for the post of Assistant Professors. Clause 7 of table 3A talks of teaching/post-doctoral experience and for each such year a candidate is entitled to two marks. 27. 26. Table 3A appended to the regulations lays down the criteria for shortlisting of candidates to be called for interview for the post of Assistant Professors. Clause 7 of table 3A talks of teaching/post-doctoral experience and for each such year a candidate is entitled to two marks. 27. From the stand taken by the respondent-university/colleges it transpires that teaching/post-doctoral experience for award of two marks for each such year the respondents have applied regulation 10 of the regulations. Two marks towards teaching/post-doctoral experience for each year has been allowed to a candidate only if such teaching is consistent with regulation 10. Even where a candidate has taught for a year in a recognized institution yet he would not be entitled to two marks unless the incumbent drew total gross emoluments not below the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. 28. Teaching/post-doctoral experience occurring in clause 7 of table 3A has not been defined. It is for this reason that the respondents have referred to and read the provisions of regulation 10 of the regulations into it. This interpretation of the respondents is the bone of contention in the present bunch of petitions. 29. Regulation 10 specifically deals with a defined exigency i.e. counting of past services for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS. This exigency is not attracted in the present set of cases. Regulation 10 has a direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved i.e. direct recruitment and promotion under CAS. Since past services are mandatorily required for appointment to the post of Associate Professor and Professor only, therefore, regulation 10 would have relevance only for appointment and promotion to such posts. 30. Reference of past services on the post of Assistant Professor for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor appears to be a surplusage since the eligibility for the post of Assistant Professor does not require any teaching experience. Counting of past services as Assistant Professor for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor serves no purpose in the scheme contained in the regulations. Regulation 10 of the regulations, therefore, has no applicability in the case of direct appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. 31. We are persuaded to take such a view as reference to teaching experience in table 3A has to be read in conjunction with post-doctoral experience as they constitute a composite class in itself. Regulation 10 of the regulations, therefore, has no applicability in the case of direct appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. 31. We are persuaded to take such a view as reference to teaching experience in table 3A has to be read in conjunction with post-doctoral experience as they constitute a composite class in itself. In the event regulation 10 conditions teaching experience, as is suggested by the respondents, the term post-doctoral experience would also have to be necessarily conditioned by regulation 10. This, however, does not appear to be the intent of the scheme contained in the regulations. 32. Limiting teaching experience to the experience of teaching as an Assistant Professor, by drawing emoluments not less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor would clearly be reading something more than what is specified in the regulations itself. Counting of past services for direct recruitment or promotion under CAS to the post of Assistant Professor otherwise is not contemplated. Such a construction would also be unworkable once a condition of the kind is attached to the post-doctoral experiences also. 33. Post-doctoral experiences can be of different kinds, including research activity, teaching activity etc. If the provisions of regulation 10 are applied while awarding marks in clause 7 of table 3A then an anomalous situation may arise, inasmuch as teaching experience gathered by a postdoctoral candidate would entitle him to two marks if teaching by him is considered as post-doctoral experience but such marks would be denied if it is treated as teaching experience only. It is for this reason that table 3A of the regulations does not refer to or rely upon regulation 10. The interpretation drawn by the respondents to read regulation 10 in table 3A, which specifically lays down the criteria for short-listing of candidates for interview for the post of Assistant Professors, therefore, cannot be approved. 34. In our opinion, regulation 10 of the regulations would be attracted only where past services are required to be counted for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS. It cannot be transposed to be made applicable in criteria for short-listing of candidates to be called for interview, to the post of Assistant Professor, by any recognized process of interpretation. Such construction otherwise is not culled out from the scheme contained in the regulations nor it helps in short-listing of candidates to be called for interview. 35. It cannot be transposed to be made applicable in criteria for short-listing of candidates to be called for interview, to the post of Assistant Professor, by any recognized process of interpretation. Such construction otherwise is not culled out from the scheme contained in the regulations nor it helps in short-listing of candidates to be called for interview. 35. Table 3A specifies the marks to be awarded to a candidate on different parameters specified therein. Apart from awarding marks for graduation; post-graduation; M.Phil. NET with JRF or NET; SLET/SET the table provides for teaching/post-doctoral experience of two marks for each year. Since the term teaching/post-doctoral experience is not defined in the regulations the ordinary/commonsensical meaning would have to be assigned to it. 36. Teaching experience as a full time teacher in a recognized university or its affiliated or constituent colleges with requisite qualification as per regulations for the post of Assistant Professor would sufficiently entitle a candidate to award of two marks for each year of teaching experience in clause 7 of table 3A. Nature of appointment i.e. substantive/ad-hoc/ guest lecturer etc. or the amount of salary paid having not been specified in clause 7 of table 3A are not relevant for the purposes of award of marks in clause 7 of table 3A for short-listing of candidates. Regulation 10 would otherwise not be applicable for the reasons recorded above. This construction would obviate the need to examine the challenge laid to the regulation 10(f)(iii) and the general instructions appended to the advertisement in that regard. It would also effectuate the cause of calling best candidates for interview, inasmuch as teaching experience of a candidate would be counted towards his merit for short-listing. 37. The interpretation assigned in this judgment to clause 7 of table 3A would sub-serve the object of short-listing the best candidates to be called for interview to the post of Assistant Professors. The selections already made, however, would not be reopened or challenged on the ground that shortlisting of candidates was not done in the manner indicated in this judgment. This is so as the selected candidates are not a party to this bunch of petitions nor their selections otherwise have been assailed. The respondents would, henceforth, short-list the candidates to be called for interview for the post of Assistant Professor in the manner indicated in this judgment. This is so as the selected candidates are not a party to this bunch of petitions nor their selections otherwise have been assailed. The respondents would, henceforth, short-list the candidates to be called for interview for the post of Assistant Professor in the manner indicated in this judgment. On these terms the writ petition, special appeal and the review application are disposed of. No order is passed as to costs.