WP(C) 1723/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI JUDGMENT & ORDER (O R A L) When the State, for the purpose of making of selection to a given post, prescribes a particular qualification in an advertisement, which, if insisted up on, would lead to arbitrary selection or which is in violation of the relevant r ecruitment rules, whether the State has the freedom to waive or ignore such a pr escribed qualification, while holding the selection process and making appointme nt, and whether the selection made by ignoring or waiving such a prescribed qual ification is sustainable in law? This is the moot question, which has arisen for determination in this writ petition. 2. The material facts, which are not in dispute, and which have led to this writ petition, may, in a nutshell, be set out as under: (i) The Assam Junior Forest Service Rules, 2005 (in short, ’the said Rules’), framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, relate to appointment to the posts of, amongst others, Animal Keeper. Rule 7 (23 ) (b) prescribes the general qualification for the post of Animal Keeper as clas s VIII passed or equivalent. (ii) An advertisement was published, on 08.09.2008, by the office of the Prin cipal Chief Conservator of Forest, Govt. of Assam, for recruitment to the posts of Animal Keeper. While the minimum educational qualification, for the post of A nimal Keeper, in the advertisement, prescribed was Class VIII passed or equivale nt, which was in tune with Rule 7(23(b) of the said Rules, one of the prescribed additional eligibility conditions, in terms of the said advertisement, was that the candidate must have the experience of working, in the field of wild life ar eas, in Zoo. (iii) The present petitioners have been working, on casual basis, as Animal Ke eper, in the State Zoo, at Guwahati. The petitioners accordingly applied for the post of Animal Keeper and appeared for selection. As the State respondents have selected the respondent Nos.4 to 9 (hereinafter referred to as the ’private res pondents’), who have no experience of having worked as Animal Keeper in the fiel d of wild life areas in Zoo, the petitioners, with the help of this application, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have challenged the select ion and appointment of the ’private respondents’ on the ground that the ’private respondents’ are outsiders and they, having no experience of working, in the fi eld of wild life areas, in Zoo, though required by the advertisement (whereunder the recruitment has been made), could not have been validly appointed to the po sts of Animal Keeper. 3. I have heard Mr. A. Rashid, learned counsel, for the petitioners, and Mr . BJ Ghosh, learned Govt. Advocate, for the State respondents. None has appeared on behalf of the ’private respondents’. 4. It is, first, contended by Mr. Rashid, learned counsel, for the petition ers, that since the ’private respondents’ have not appeared in this writ petitio n and they have not resisted the writ petition, the reliefs, which the petitione rs have sought for, namely, that the selection and appointment of the ’private r espondents’ be set aside and quashed, because their selection, according to Mr. Rashid, was illegal and, in stead of the ’private respondents’, the petitioners, who have the experience of working as Animal Keeper in the field of wild life a reas in Zoo, be directed to be appointed. Suffice it to point out, in this regar d, that a writ petition is not decided by default. Merely because the ’private r espondents’ have not appeared and contested the writ petition, the same cannot b e made a ground for allowing the writ petition. 5. Irrespective of the fact as to whether a person, impleaded as a responde nt, in a writ petition, does or does not resist the writ petition, the person, w ho comes as a writ petitioner, must satisfy the Court that he is entitled to the relief, which he has sought for, and/or his challenge to an appointment be sust ained. 6. It is next contended by Mr. Rashid, learned counsel for the petitioners, that having prescribed experience as an essential qualification for appointment to the post of Animal Keeper in Zoo, the State respondents could not have selec ted outsiders, such as, the ’private respondents’, who had no such experience; w hereas all the petitioners had the experience of working as Animal Keepers, thou gh on casual basis. While considering this aspect of the case, it needs to be no ted, as already mentioned above, that the said rules do not prescribe experience as one of the conditions of eligibility. Notwithstanding, therefore, the fact t hat the advertisement had prescribed experience as one of the conditions of elig ibility, any selection, made by insisting upon such an eligibility criterion, wo uld have been wholly illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as a selection cannot be mad e contrary to, or in violation of, the relevant recruitment rules. Merely becaus e of the fact that the condition of eligibility prescribed, in the form of exper ience as Animal Keeper, in Zoo, has not been adhered to by the State respondents , while, ultimately making the selection, the selection of the ’private responde nts’ cannot be regarded as bad in law if their selection is, otherwise, validly made. Except for the fact that the ’private respondents’ did not have the experi ence of working as Animal Keeper, in field of wild life areas, in Zoo, no other reason has been assigned by the petitioners for challenging the recruitment of t he ’private respondents’ as Animal Keeper. 7. Coupled with the above, it is also worth noticing that having prescribed the essential eligibility criteria under a recruitment rule, the State cannot p rescribe any other additional condition, which is inconsistent with, or in viola tion of, the relevant recruitment rules. Notwithstanding, therefore, the fact th at the State prescribed, in the advertisement, experience as an essential eligib ility criterion, the State had the undoubted freedom, or rather compulsion, of n ot insisting upon such a condition of eligibility and the selection of the ’priv ate respondents’, without insisting upon experience, which had been prescribed i n the advertisement, would not make the selection and appointment of the ’privat e respondents’ bad in law. 8. Otherwise also, it is of great significance to note that a selection can not, in the light of the relevant recruitment rules, remain confined within the persons, who have been working, on casual basis, as Animal Keeper in Zoo. Admitt edly, there was no selection process for selecting the petitioners as Animal Kee pers on casual basis. Their appointments, therefore, on casual basis, as Animal Keepers, was nothing, but arbitrary and contrary to the principles governing pub lic employment. When it comes to the question of making regular recruitment to a sanctioned post, such a recruitment process has to be kept open to the outsider s too. There is, admittedly, no Zoo having wildlife, in the State of Assam, othe r than the one at Guwahati, where the petitioners have been working as Animal Ke epers on casual basis. Confining within those, who have the experience of workin g on the basis of arbitrary appointment as Animal Keeper, would have been in vio lation of the guarantee, which has been provided by Article 14 and 15 in the rea lm of public employment. (See State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006 ) 4 SCC 1). 9. The question, therefore, of anyone other than a person, who may have com e to be appointed arbitrarily as Animal Keeper in the Zoo at Guwahati, no other person, in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, could have acquired experience in the said field. Such a condition, if insisted upon, woul d have made the whole selection process nothing, but arbitrary, illegal and a fa rce, because selection, in such a situation, would have remained per force confi ned within the present petitioners, because they are the only ones, who have the experience. No wonder, therefore, that the said Rules do not prescribe experien ce as essential conditions of recruitment, because it is not possible to have ex perience without being appointed as Animal keeper. 10. Situated thus, it becomes clear that the selection and appointment of th e ’private respondents’ do not call for any interference by this Court in exerci se of this Court’s powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The wr it petition is wholly without merit and stands accordingly dismissed. 11. No order as to costs.