Back
2023 Supreme(HP) 273
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Vijay Kumar Puri – Appellant
Versus
Himachal Pradesh University through its Registrar & Ors - Respondents.
CWPOA No. 660 of 2020
Decided on : 25-05-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Rita Hingmang, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Surender Verma, Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate
Point of Law: Ground of not awarding adequate marks against the component of publication was never raised at the time of filing of the petition.
Headnote:
Application - Deletion of name of respondent from array of parties - Post of Assistant Professor - Whether on date of interview, candidate seeking appointment against post in question, possessed requisite qualification or not - Since at time of interview, petitioner was not possessing degree of Ph.D, there was no occasion for Interview Committee to award him marks against that component - Moreover, record reveals that thesis of Ph.D submitted by the petitioner was after cut-off date given in the advertisement. (Para 5).
Finding of the Court :
Court finds no unreasonableness in the decision of interview board in awarding more marks to respondent but even otherwise, while exercising writ jurisdiction, court cannot substitute its own views for that of wisdom of Selection Committee possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day to day working.
Result: Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
CMP-T No. 60 of 2023
By way of instant application, a prayer has been made on behalf of applicant for deletion of the name of respondent No.3 from the array of parties.
It has been averred in the application that respondent No.3 being Member of Executive Council Himachal Pradesh University Shimla was arrayed as party-respondent, but since no relief has been claimed against him, he may be ordered to be deleted from the array of parties.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Name of respondent No.3 is ordered to be deleted from the array of parties. Registry to carry out necessary correction in the memo of parties. The application stands disposed.
CWPOA No. 660 of 2020
Vide advertisement dated 8.9.2014, Annexure R-1/A, respondent No.1-Himachal Pradesh University advertised posts of Assistant Professor in various streams. Petitioner being fully eligible, applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the stream of Hindi. He being fully eligible/qualified was invited for interview and on the basis of his qualification was awarded 36.75 marks out of 80. Since other candidate Ms. Poonam Chauhan, respondent No.2, secured more marks than petitioner i.e 38.15, petitioner was unable to get appointment against the post of Assistant Professor in the stream of Hindi.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with his non selection against the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi), petitioner approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 5986 of 2016, which now on account of abolishment of erstwhile Tribunal stands transferred to this Court and has been re-registered as CWPOA No. 660 of 2020, praying therein following reliefs:
“i) That the appointment of respondent No.2 may kindly be set aside and direction may kindly be issued to appoint the applicant from retrospective date.
ii) That respondent No.1 may be directed to keep one post of Assistant Professor, Hindi (reserved for PWD) as vacant or create a new post of Assistant professor, Hindi (reserved for PWD) considering the qualifications of the applicant.”
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was not awarded adequate marks qua the component of publication, as a result of which, he was unable to secure more marks than selected candidates i.e. respondents No.2.
4. Ms. Rita Hingmang, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that bare perusal of publication annexed by petitioner along with application clearly reveals that he ought to have been awarded full marks against the aforesaid component but without there being any justification, only 2.50 marks out of 5 marks have been awarded in favour of the petitioner, as a result of which, he was unable to secure first position in the merit list.
5. After having carefully perused tally-sheet, wherein marks obtained by the candidates have been given, this Court finds that against the component of publication, petitioner has been awarded 2.50 marks out of 5 marks, whereas other two candidates Ms. Poonam Chauhan and Mr. Brij Lal have not been awarded any marks against aforesaid component, because either they had not furnished details with regard to publication or they had no publication or documents in their names. Since Interview Committee after having perused details of publication placed on record by petitioner has already awarded marks i.e. 2.50 marks, no illegality can be said to have been committed while declaring the petitioner unsuccessful. Though learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner ought to have been awarded higher marks against the component of publication but such plea of her cannot be accepted for the reason that publication, if any, are/were to be considered by the Expert/Interview Commi
