Appointment qualifications must match the advertisement; later rules cannot cure an appointment invalid from inception.

Appointment to the post of Officer on Special Duty in the Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat had to satisfy the qualifications stated in the 1985 advertisement. Those qualifications required either seven years' standing practice as an advocate or pleader, or service as a judicial officer eligible for appointment as a District Judge or Additional District Judge. The appellant, holding only a Grade III post under the Assam Judicial Service Rules, 1967, had not first become eligible for Grade II promotion and therefore did not meet the prescribed standard. The later Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat Rules, 1986, including Schedule II and Rule 38, could not validate an appointment that was unlawful from the outset.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant satisfied the prescribed qualifications for appointment to the post of Officer on Special Duty in the Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat.

Analysis: The appointment had to be judged by the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement issued in 1985. Those qualifications required either seven years' standing practice as an advocate or pleader, or a judicial officer qualified to be appointed as a District Judge or Additional District Judge. Under the Assam Judicial Service Rules, 1967, appointment to Grade I posts of District Judge and Additional District Judge could be made only from Grade II, while the appellant was holding only a Grade III post and had not first secured eligibility for Grade II promotion. The later Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat Rules, 1986, including Schedule II and Rule 38, could not govern or validate an appointment already made under the earlier advertisement, and Rule 38 could not cure an appointment that was unlawful at its inception.

Conclusion: The appellant did not possess the prescribed qualifications on the date of appointment, and the challenge to his appointment failed.

---