the essential criterion indicated above is that the post-doctoral research experience has to be for a period after conferring / acquiring the Ph.D. Degree. By drawing the attention of this Court to the application submitted by the respondent no. 5, more particularly, those containing the academic qualifications, Shri Mahanta, learned counsel has submitted that it is the admitted fact that the respondent no.5 had acquired the Ph.D Degree in the year 2014 and if the same is taken into consideration, he does not fulfill the requirement of having four years of post-doctoral research experience before submission of the application in response to the advertisement dated 11.08.2017. If the respondent no. 5 is not eligible in terms of the advertisement in question, the very fact of short listing him for facing further procedure was itself illegal and erroneous which requires a corrective measures from this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Apart from the principal argument regarding the eligibility, Shri Mahanta, learned counsel further submits that on comparison of the inter-se merits so far as the academic qualification is concerned, the petitioner stands on a better footing than the respondent no. 5 and therefore, the marks allotted in the interview is not in accordance with law. The learned counsel, accordingly submits that even assuming for the sake of arguments that the respondent no. 5 was eligible, he could not have competed against the petitioner, who stands on a better footing so far as the academic curriculum is concerned.
