Lok Pal Singh, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 8.6.2017 passed by respondent no.2, whereby the respondent no.2 rejected the representation of the petitioner.

(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 to prepare the fresh merit list after computing the correct quality points of the petitioner and consider the candidature of the petitioner for interview for the post of lecturer (Sociology) in pursuance of advertisement dated 30.10.2016 issued by the respondent no.4 and to give the appointment on the said post.

(iii) To issue a writ, order or direction by directing the respondents to produce the entire record of the selection process of lecturer (Sociology) in pursuant of advertisement dated 30.10.2016 issued by the respondent no.4.

(iv) To issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(v) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that on 30.10.2016 an advertisement was issued inviting applications from the eligible candidates for different teaching posts including the post of Lecturer (Sociology) in A.N.K. Inter College Gularbhoj, District Udham Singh Nagar. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer (Sociology). According to the petitioner, the candidates who were below in merit to the petitioner were called for interview but the petitioner was not issued call letter for the interview. The petitioner then moved representation to respondent no.2 whereby he prayed to cancel the merit list and to prepare the new merit list. But, when no heed was paid on petitioner’s representation, he was constrained to file writ petition being WPSS No.263 of 2017 before this Court. In the said writ petition, the Court directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks. Pursuant to Court’s order dated 17.05.2017, the respondent no.2 decided the representation of the petitioner by a detailed order dated 08.06.2017, and rejected the representation of the petitioner on the following grounds, firstly that the petitioner was not registered with the employment exchange before the date of advertisement, secondly the petitioner had not enclosed the certified copy of B.Ed. mark-sheet and thirdly that the petitioner in the same year while doing teaching work has pursued his B.Ed, which is illegal as per law.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.4 wherein at para-3 and 5, it is stated as follows:

“3. That it is relevant to point out here that the advertisement was issued dated 30.10.2016 for the vacancies in the concerned college, one of the vacancy issued was of Lecturer (Sociology) under General Category. The petitioner applied against the said vacancy of Lecturer (Sociology) through incomplete application without annexing the necessary documents as prescribed by the advertisement. Firstly the petitioner did not annexed the registration of Employment Exchange and secondly he also did not annexed certified copy his certificates, these were the mandatory requirement as per the advertisement, therefore in accordance with law, his application for the post of Lecturer (Sociology) was rejected by the concerned authority and the same was intimated to the petitioner vide letter dated 30.12.2016.

5. That it is further relevant to point out here that once application of the petitioner being defective, for not fulfilling the condition of advertisement, was rejected by the authority concerned, then there is no scope of calculating the merit of the petitioner and it has been further came into knowledge of the authority concerned and even the answering respondent