IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.01.2025 Dr. Sapana ….Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Tarun Dhingra, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl. A.G., Haryana Mr. A.S.Virk, Advocate and Mr. Jayant Puneet Bamal, Advocate for Mr. H.S.Gill, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3 Mr. G.S.Bains, Advocate for respondent No. 5 Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 6 ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of result dated 23.02.2018 (Annexure P-3) whereby respondent No. 6 was appointed and she was rejected.

2. Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, at the outset, submits that respondent No. 6 has resigned, thus, relief sought against respondent No. 6 has rendered infructuous.

3. The petitioner pursuant to advertisement (Annexure P-1) applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Commercial Art, Designing & Painting. The advertisement was issued by respondent No. 5-The Principal, Arya Kanya Mahavidyalya Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra. Apart from petitioner, a number of candidates participated in the selection process. A Committee of Experts was constituted by Government which conducted interview and scrutinized documents of all the candidates. The respondent No. 6 was selected as she secured highest marks. The Selection Committee forwarded its recommendations to University which were approved by the University and respondent No. 6 came to be selected. At a later point of time, respondent No. 6 resigned and at present post is lying vacant.

4. Mr. Tarun Dhingra, Advocate submits that petitioner was not awarded accurate marks with respect to her publication in International Journals. She, at the time of interview, had submitted documents disclosing Impact Factor, however, Selection Committee ignored Articles of petitioner published in International Journals and selected respondent No. 6.

5. Per contra, counsel for the respondents submit that petitioner at the time of interview submitted covering page of Journal where Impact Factor was disclosed, however, actual Articles were not produced, resultantly Selection Committee could not consider Articles of the petitioner. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

7. From the perusal of record, it is evident that Article of petitioner was published in ‘Current Journal’ which is an International Peer Reviewed Research Refereed Quarterly Journal. The petitioner has been denied marks with respect to Article published in International Journal on the ground that there is no Impact Factor whereas from the perusal of page 165 of the paper book, it is evident that 2.132 is Impact Factor of current Journal wherein Article of petitioner was published. If the Article was not supplied alongwith aforesaid Journal, the Selection Committee could have very well asked the petitioner to produce Article especially when covering page of Journal was produced. The respondent No. 6 who was selected, has already resigned, thus, claim of the petitioner needs to be reconsidered.

8. In the wake of above discussion and findings, respondents No. 1 to 5 are hereby directed to re-constitute a Selection Committee within three months from today which would re-consider claim of the petitioner. It is also made clear that any other candidate who had participated in the original selection process would be free to participate and his/her claim would also be considered. The articles published and other achievements till the previous date of interview would be considered.

9. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)

JUDGE

08.01.2025 paramjit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No