Experience marks require formal appointment to the specific post applied for, rather than incidental performance of related duties.

The petitioner applied for the post of Secretarial Assistant (originally advertised as Data Entry Operator) pursuant to an advertisement dated 07.12.2020.

The recruitment criteria under Clause 3.4 stipulated that candidates would receive experience marks (10–15 marks) provided they had worked in Government or Semi-Government institutions on the specific post applied for.

Although the petitioner qualified for the exam, the Selection Committee refused to grant him experience marks.

The petitioner submitted two experience certificates from Government Polytechnic Colleges (Surajpur and Korea) indicating he was appointed as a "part-time Lecturer" but had performed duties as a Data Entry Operator and Computer Operator in addition to his teaching role.

Consequently, the petitioner challenged the Final Selection List dated 21.06.2021.

1. Whether a candidate appointed as a "Part-time Lecturer" is entitled to experience marks for the post of "Secretarial Assistant/Data Entry Operator" under Clause 3.4 of the recruitment advertisement.

2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the absence of impleading the selected candidate as a party respondent or challenging their appointment order.

The court applied the doctrine of strict adherence to recruitment advertisements, specifically Clause 3.4, which mandates that experience marks shall only be awarded if the experience is gained in the "applied post" (pados se sambandhit).

In matters challenging a selection process, the successful candidate is a necessary party; failure to implead such a party or challenge their specific appointment order is fatal to the writ petition.

The court observed that Clause 3.4 of the advertisement explicitly required the experience to be on the "applied post".

Upon reviewing the petitioner’s certificates, the court noted that the petitioner was formally appointed as a "part-time Lecturer" and not as a "Data Entry Operator" or "Secretarial Assistant".

The Court reasoned that performing auxiliary computer-related tasks while holding a different substantive designation (Lecturer) does not satisfy the requirement of having been "engaged or appointed on the post" of Data Entry Operator.

The court found a significant procedural lapse: the petitioner failed to implead the candidate who was actually selected and appointed to the post, nor did he challenge that individual's appointment order.

Since the recruitment was for a contractual position from 2020 and the petitioner failed to meet the specific experience criteria or follow procedural requirements, the court found no merit in the challenge.

The Court further held that the failure to implead the selected candidate and the failure to challenge the appointment order precluded the grant of any relief.

The prayer to quash the selection list and grant 10 marks for experience was denied.