WP(C) 3451/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr PP Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr Baruah. le arned counsel for the respondent No.4 and Ms R Chakraborty, learned State counse l. In challenge is the selection of the respondent No.4 to the post of Inst ructor, Draughtsman (Mechanical) in the establishment of the Director of Employm ent & Craftsman Training, Assam. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 11 .8.2008 had granted interim restraint against filling up of the said post, if no t already done. It is submitted at the Bar that in view of the above order the a forementioned post remains unfilled. Petitioner’s pleaded version in short is that being qualified in terms o f the employment notice dated 13.6.2007 soliciting applications inter alia for t he post of Instructor, Draughtsman (Mechanical), he had offered his candidature therefor. The respondent No.4 along with others also staked his claim to the sai d post. On the culmination of the selection process a select list was published on 25.7.2008 in which the respondent No.4 was empanelled as the candidate recomm ended for appointment to the aforementioned post. He incidentally belongs to the Other Backward Community of the State. The petitioner claims himself to be a me mber of the Scheduled Caste community. He has impugned the selection of the resp ondent No.4 on the ground that in terms of the institutional roster and the back log of vacancies in the aforementioned post, the same ought to have been reserve d for a Scheduled Caste candidate. According to him, the respondent No.4 does no t possess the National Council of Vocational Training (in short, NCVT) Certifica te and, therefore, he is ineligible to be considered for the post involved. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the State respondents. The written instructions furnished by Ms R Chakraborty, learned State counsel indicate that in view of the prescribed academic qualification and other conditions of eligibi lity there was no bar to take note of a diploma in Mechanical Engineering for th e post involved and that, therefore, the selection of the respondent No.4 was va lid. The plea of backlog vacancy for Scheduled Caste candidates has been sought to be negated on the ground that such vacancy in the combined roster has been al ready filled up by one Sri Tarun Kr. Misra. The respondent No.4 has substantiall y endorsed the stand of the official respondents as above. According to him, dip loma in Mechanical Engineering is an acquisition higher in worth than that of a NCVT Certificate and, therefore, his selection can by no means be assailed in th e manner as sought to be done. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leaded facts and the materials on record, this Court feels inclined to sustain t he challenge made by the petitioner. Though the respondent No.4 has asserted tha t diploma in Mechanical Engineering for the post involved his higher in worth an d qualification than that of a certificate from the NCVT, noticeably neither the advertisement indicate it to be so nor does the written instructions divulge in definite terms that diploma and the certificate aforementioned are equivalent t o each other. It is no longer res integra that the norms of eligibility if spelt out in an advertisement initiating a public participatory process the concerned administrative authorities should rigidly stick thereto lest the process stands vitiated by lack of objectivity, fairness and transparency. Though indubitably the State authorities are supposed to be the authors of the norms of eligibility , they are obliged in law to disclose the same with precision and clarity so tha t an intending participant in the process is neither misguided nor mislead. In t he opinion of this Court, had it been indicated in the advertisement that diplom a in Mechanical Engineering would also be an admissible qualification for a cand idate to be eligible, candidates of better worth and suitability might have cont ended for the post. The expression equivalent recognized qualification or Natio nal Apprenticeship Certificate in appropriate trade provides an unwarranted fl exibility to the discretion of the administrative authorities having the potenti al of invalidating it on extraneous and impertinent considerations. In the unhes itant opinion of this Court the process, therefore, does not satisfy the mandato ry essentiality of transparency of a public process. In this context, the plea o f the petitioner against the eligibility of the respondent No.4 cannot be lightl y brushed aside. To reiterate, in the absence of any clarification by the State respondents asserting equivalence of certificate and the diploma involved, this Court is left with no other alternative but to interfere with the selection of t he respondent No.4. Ordered accordingly. The petition stands allowed. No costs.