JUDGMENT
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.
1. The writ petitioner was an aspirant for the post of Conservation Assistant in Victoria Memorial Hall (hereinafter referred to as Victoria Memorial).
2. Victoria Memorial was set up by the Victoria Memorial Act, 1903 as amended from time to time by the Central Government. The Victoria Memorial is managed and looked after by a trust and His Excellency The Governor of West Bengal is Ex-officio Chairman of the Board of Trustee.
3. By an advertisement dated 20/26th July, 2002, the Victoria Memorial, inter alia, invited applications for the post of Conservation Assistant (two vacancies). The advertisement reads as follows:
“Scale Rs. 4,500-125-7,000/- + usual allowances as admissible. Number of Vacancies : 02 (Two), Nature of Reservation : Unreserved, Age : Not to exceed 35 years as on 1st July, 2002. Qualification : Essential: (a) A Bachelor Degree in Science from a recognized University with Chemistry and Physics or Chemistry and Zoology, (b) Conversant with various processes or repair namely, chiffoning, tissuing, lamination, deacidification, cleaning and restoration of documents etc. including equipment and preservation needed for conservation.”
4. On a bare look to the qualification it appears that the essential qualification was divided into tw6 categories, one being the educational qualification and the other with regard to experience. Altogether 227 candidates applied for the post. 19 candidates were short listed. The writ petitioner was not called for interview. He approached this Court by way of an earlier writ petition. Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. by His Lordship’s interim order dated April 23, 2003 asked the authority to allow the petitioner to participate at the interview. Accordingly, the writ petitioner was allowed to participate at the interview. He, however, became unsuccessful. The writ petition then came up for hearing before His Lordship. His Lordship disposed of the writ petition as it had become infructuous. Second writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner alleging that the respondent-authority gave appointment to the persons who did not fulfil the eligibility criteria as per advertisement published. The writ petition was heard by His Lordship. When His Lordship dismissed the writ petition by His Lordship’s judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2003. His Lordship observed that the successful candidates were not made parties to the writ petition, His Lordship further made it clear that the petitioner would be entitled to move afresh “after making these persons parties and specifying their shortfall”. The present writ application being the third one came up for hearing before me. The same was partly heard by me on February 18, 2005 and today the hearing has been concluded.
5. Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, learned Senior Counsel, appearing in support of this application submits that the writ petitioner was having the eligible qualification in terms of Clause (a) being Graduate in Chemistry and Zoology. He is also having necessary experience stipulated in Clause (b), whereas the respondent Nos. 19 and 20 being the candidates successful in getting appointment did not have any requisite qualification in terms of Clause (b). He has referred to the supplementary affidavit filed by both the private respondents disclosing their credentials. Respondent No. 19 is having a bright academic career being Post-Graduate in Chemistry. He had cleared NET for becoming eligible to get lecturership in Colleges in Chemical Science Stream. It is, however, an admitted fact that the respondent No. 19 could not disclose any document in support of his assertion in respect of Clause (b) apart from his educational credentials required for Clause (a).
6. With regard to respondent No. 20 it appears that he too has a better qualification than the petitioner in respect of this educational career in terms of Clause (a). In support of Clause (b), the respondent No. 20 disclosed two documents, one being certificate from Indian Institute of Ecology and Environment having successfully obtained Post-Graduate Diploma in Ecology and Environment examination and the other one from Indian Plywood Industries Research Institute having successfully completed certificate course in Mechanical Wood Industries Technology. Referring to those credentials Mr. Bandopadhyay has contented that the respondent Nos. 19 and 20 did not have any qualification to their credit which could satisfy the authority in respect of Clause (b).
7. Mr. Bandopadhyay has drawn my attention to the definition of “essential” in Black’s Law Dictionary to the effect that “essential” means “requisite” and it is indispensable criteria. Mr. Bandopadhyay has cited three decisions in support of his contentions. In the first case , Bhagirathdan v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., the identical issue was considered by the Apex Court. In the said case the requirement of the post was a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and five years experience in drilling or of maintenance of drilling machines. The Apex Court observed that the qualification was two-fold being educational and practical. The Apex Court further observed that a better educational qualification does not obviate the need for the prescribed practical experience. The next case cited by Mr. Bandopadhyay is , Sunil Kumar Goyal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission. In the instant case some Law Assistants working for the Government Department wanted to join Rajasthan Judicial Service. The post required three years minimum practice at the bar. The writ petitioners contended that while acting as Legal Assistants for the Education Department of the Government, they sometime appeared in Court. The Apex Court observed that occasional appearance in Court on behalf of the Department could not fulfil the criteria prescribed for entry in Judicial Service as the Apex Court found the same to be essential qualification. The third and last case cited by Mr. Bandopadhyay, is reported in 1983 (3) SLR 495, P.K. Ramchandra v. Union of India. In the said case, the persons having requisite qualification were found unsuitable according to the authority and as such they relaxed the qualification to accommodate the successful candidate. The Apex Court depricated such practice and observed that the essential qualification in absence of power could not be relaxed.
8. Mr. Bandopadhyay lastly contends that the appointment given to the respondent Nos. 19 and 20 should be quashed and the authority should be asked to consider the issue afresh by considering the candidates who already applied for the said post in terms of the advertisement having requisite qualification and select one of them.
9. Mr. Ahin Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Victoria Memorial submits that the writ petitioner has not come in clean hand. He initially made allegations against the officials of Victoria Memorial to His Excellency The Governor of West Bengal being Ex-officio Chairman. Such allegations were enquired into and were found to be baseless. Mr. Choudhury also submits that the successful candidates are having better qualification. Clause (b) of the advertisement did not stipulate any particular credential to be brought and it was only on the subjective satisfaction of the Board of Interview by which the candidates were selected. Mr. Choudhury has placed great emphasis on the word “conversant”. According to him the word “conversant” does not necessarily mean that a person is to have any practical experience on the subject mentioned there. He might have gathered knowledge in those subject mentioned in Clause (b) while undergoing his study or otherwise. It was only for the satisfaction of the Board of Interview. Such qualification was to be considered and fulfilled. Mr. Choudhury also has drawn my attention to the credentials of respondent Nos. 19 and 20. He also submits that those are the better qualified candidates and in absence of any material to come to a conclusion that the selection process was vitiated by mala fide or illegality, the same should not be disturbed by this Court.
10. Mr. Pradip Kumar Guha, learned Counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos. 19 and 20 has adapted the submissions made by Mr. Choudhury. In addition, he has also put great emphasis on the credentials of the respective candidates being respondent Nos. 19 and 20. Mr. Guha also submits that the writ petition itself is not maintainable in absence of Union of India being made a party respondent. He submits that Victoria Memorial is an Organ of Department of Culture, Union of India. Hence, the Union of India should have been made a party. Mr. Guha further submits that the third writ petition which is now being disposed of by me has been filed pursuant to the liberty granted by His Lordship and as such the petitioner is to fulfil the conditions imposed by His Lordship which he has not as he could not demonstrate in writ petition the shortfalls of the respondent Nos. 19 and 20.
11. I have considered the rival contentions. In my view when the advertisement was published the respondent authority must conduct the selection process strictly as per advertisement. They should have been more careful before issuing such advertisement. Once the advertisement had been published and applications had been perused in they were to act strictly as per advertisement. If there is any lacuna in the advertisement the entire process is vitiated. It might be true that the writ petitioner could not substantiate any charge of mala fide or bias or arbitrariness of the authority. However, when the irregularity and illegality are apparent as I cannot be a mere looker. After receipt of 227 applications, the authority short listed 19. The qualifications of those 19 candidates have been set out in a chart annexed to the pleadings. On perusal of the said chart and in the light of the fact as discussed above, I am of the view that the authority proceeded to short list candidates on the basis of their educational qualification being requisite qualification in terms of Clause (a) only. Clause (b) was not given much weightage. Mr. Choudhury’s contention that it was for the Board of Interview to have a subjective satisfaction on Clause (b). In my view, is not tenable. While the authority specified such qualification being the advertisement itself they should have looked into and perused the relevant credentials furnished by the different candidates. If they could find out any difficulty at that stage they could have recalled the advertisement, they could have published the addendum but instead they proceeded on the basis of the advertisement as published. The respondent No. 19 did not produce any credential at all in support of Clause (b). The respondent No. 20 produced documents in respect of Clause (b) which are irrelevant. In this regard may I refer to the affidavit by Victoria Memorial where Curator dealing with the qualification of two successful candidates observed as follows:
(i) Abhijit Bhawal - "It was found that he had knowledge in lamination, tissuing, de-acidification of paper, repair of various wood-based panels." (ii) Subhendu Banerjee - "He was found to be conversant with various process like de-acidification, lamination, tissuing and repair technique of paper objects." 12. Apart from the statements made by Curator no document in support of these two averments quoted supra could be produced either at the time of interview or before this Court. 13. Hence, I hold that the selection for the post of Conservation Assistant was vitiated by irregularity as well as illegality and the appointment given to respondent Nos. 19 and 20 are quashed and set aside as a matter of consequence.
14. There were altogether 227 candidates who applied for the said post in 2002. The selection process is being quashed in 2005. Hence, it would be appropriate if the authority would sympathetically consider their case in the matter of relaxation of the age. Hence, I direct the authority to place this matter before His Excellency The Governor being the Ex-officio Chairman for his sympathetic consideration in the matter of relaxation of age in case these candidates participate for selection in the subject post against fresh advertisement.
15. The Victoria Memorial would be free to proceed afresh to fill up these two vacancies. They may, however, do so in the light of the observations made hereinbefore. There would be stay of operation of this judgment and order for a period of two weeks from date.
16. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this order be furnished to the parties on priority basis, if applied for.