230 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 Raunak Rathee …Appellant Vs.

Dr. Jyoti Deswal and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate for the appellant.

Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Depak Girotra, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 5.

Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate for respondents No.7, 11 and 12.

Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

***

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)

1. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Ph.D. degree awarded to the respondent-writ petitioner is in cloud of doubt as a similar Ph.D. degree was awarded to some other person from some other university and, therefore, the benefit of marks on the basis of Ph.D. degree, could not have been awarded by the learned Single Judge.

2. Learned counsel submits that the appellant was selected and it is not her fault if the respondent-writ petitioner had been denied selection and she has been working in the college since 2018. Learned counsel further submits that there is a post available in the college and one Assistant Professor has also expired. He, therefore, submits that the appellant should be allowed to continue.

3. We have heard learned counsel at length and also perused the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. It is a case where applications were invited for filling up the posts of Assistant Professor (English). Ten marks were to be allotted to the candidates who have passed Ph.D. degree. The learned Single Judge has noticed the facts relating to award of Ph.D. degree marks to the writ petitioner as well as the submissions of the counsel for the UGC/College and the present appellant and reached to a conclusion that the Ph.D. degree awarded to the writ petitioner was never challenged nor set aside by any competent authority.

4. As per the provisions and regulations issued by the UGC, it reached to a conclusion that ten marks were to be allotted for having passed Ph.D. degree and the action of the Selection Committee in not awarding 10 marks to the writ petitioner in spite of a certificate of Ph.D. degree being available on record, was found to be fallacious and the writ petition was, therefore, allowed setting aside the action of the Selection Committee with directions to the college to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner subject to verification of the provisional certificate placed by the writ petitioner on the record. An observation was also made that if there is any post of Assistant Professor (English) lying vacant, the college would not be precluded from taking into consideration this aspect of the matter by protecting the interest of respondent No.16, i.e. the appellant, herein.

5. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the validity of the Ph.D. degree awarded to the writ petitioner being a copy of Ph.D. thesis of one Anjali Dalal, is not a subject matter of the writ petition nor we, in appeal, can examine the similarity of thesis on the basis of which Ph.D. degree was awarded to two different students belonging to two different universities. If the appellant has any grievance, the appellant has other remedies in law with regard to the same.

6. The only question which was before the learned Single Judge and before us in LPA is with regard to the method and manner in which the selection has been conducted for the post of Assistant Professor (English). It is an admitted position that so far as the writ petitioner is concerned, she had applied by placing on record all the documents which included provisional certificate of having passed Ph.D. degree. However, the Selection Committee did not take the same into consideration and did not award ten marks to the writ petitioner which resulted in the order passed by the learned Singl