JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the appointment order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Registrar of the Gurukul Kangri Vishwavidhyalaya Haridwar whereby the Registrar has appointed respondent nos. 5 & 6 herein to the post of Assistant Professor respectively in Jyotish/Jyotir Vigyan and Vedic Karamkand and in Sanskrit Department of the Gurukul Kangri Vishwavidhyalaya Haridwar.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor in the departments of Jyotish/Jyotir Vigyan and Karamkand and also in Sanskrit department of the aforesaid Vishwavidhyalaya.”

2. Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’) issued an advertisement no. GVK/Estt./02/2016, inviting applications for various teaching posts including the post of Assistant Professor, Sanskrit and Assistant Professor, Jyotirvigyan & Vedic Karmkand. Petitioner responded to the said advertisement and applied for the aforesaid two posts. Petitioner was called for interview, for both the posts, which was held on 2.11.2017. Since petitioner was not selected on any of the two posts, while respondent no. 5 and 6 were selected and appointed, therefore, petitioner has challenged their appointment on the following grounds:

(i) Respondent no. 5 had not qualified National Eligibility Test (NET), yet he was appointed as Assistant Professor, Jyotirvigyan & Vedic Karmkand, even though his Ph.D. degree was not as per University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil./Ph.D. Degree), Regulations 2009;

(ii) Ph.D. degree of respondent no. 5 was not awarded in regular mode, as he was serving as part- time teacher in Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya during the period of Ph.D.;

(iii) Respondent no. 6 although had qualified National Eligibility Test, however, his Ph.D. degree is not as per University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree), Regulations 2009.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the University submits that challenge to the selection and appointment of respondent no. 5 and 6 thrown by the petitioner is without any substance. He submits that respondent no. 5 and 6 were appointed on the recommendation of a duly constituted selection committee consisting of subject experts and the assessment made by selection committee is not open to judicial review. He further submits that selection was made in a fair and transparent manner and there is no allegation of nepotism or favoritism, in the writ petition, against any Member of selection committee.

4. As regards eligibility of respondent no. 5 for his appointment based on his Ph.D. degree, learned Counsel for the University submits that respondent no. 5 was awarded Ph.D. degree by Sampuranand Sanskrit University, Varanasi and the competent authority in the said university has issued a certificate that the Ph.D. degree awarded to respondent no. 5 fulfils all five criteria indicated in UGC (Minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for maintenance of standards in higher education) (4^th Amendment) Regulations, 2016, notified on 11.7.2016. Certificate issued by Sampuranand Sanskrit University in favour of respondent no. 5 is enclosed with the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 5.

5. Regulation 3 of the 4^th Amendment Regulations 2016, notified on 11.7.2016, is extracted below:

"3. The proviso prescribed under Regulation 3.3.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.2.2, 4.4.2.3, 4.5.3 and 4.6.3 in the University Grants Commission (Minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and other measures for the maintenance of standards in higher education) (3th Amendment) Regulations, 2016 regardi