NEELAM MATTU Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner seeks the making of a mandamus, for therethrough, Annexure P-5, of, 30.6.2001, and Annexure P-6, of, 11.7.2001, becoming annulled and set aside. Through the afore made Annexures, respondents No. 2 and 3, were appointed as Lecturers in the respondent University, hence in the faculty of Zoology, in the department of Bio-Sciences, Himachal Pradesh University. The selections of respondent No. 2 (since deleted) and, of, respondent No. 3 to the post concerned, was made in pursuance to both applying against the post of Lecturer, (Zoology) in the department of Bio-Sciences, Himachal Pradesh University, after issuance of an advertisement, as, carried in Annexure P-1. The Selection committee concerned recommended the names of respondents No. 2 and 3, for selection to the afore advertised posts, who thereafter became appointed, as, Lecturer(s) (Zoology) in the department of Bio-Sciences, Himachal Pradesh University. The writ petitioner challenges the selections and consequent appointment(s) of respondents No. 2 (since deleted) and, of, respondent No. 3, against the advertised posts. His challenge is anvilled upon apposite ordinance 35.54, ordinance whereof stands extracted hereinafter:

(2.) Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that though the selection and appointment of co-respondent No. 3, against the advertised post of Lecturer (Zoology), in the department of Bio-Science, H.P. University, does not cause any breach, vis- -vis, the mandate carried in clause (a) of ordinance 35.54 of the H.P. University. However, he further submits that since the writ petitioner was more qualified, and, had higher educational qualification than respondent No. 3, hence perse thereupon, the selection committee concerned was enjoined to rate the writ petitioner, higher than corespondent No. 3. However, the afore made submission, before this Court, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not, hold force, as the selection committee concerned, as became constituted for the relevant purpose, could not, dehors any Rule, regulating the ratings/marks, to be awarded to the purportedly higher educational qualifications, or research papers, made by the aspirants concerned, hence award proportionate marks, qua therewith. Even the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted before this Court, that no Rules, nor any instructions, are in place to regulate the ratings or awarding of marks, vis- -vis, the aspirants concerned, upon theirs holding higher or better educational qualification, than the selectees concerned, further also he submits that also for any research works, which may bring an inference of superior meritworthiness of the petitioner, vis- -vis, the selectee, there exist no Rules or instructions, for awarding proportionate therewith marks, to the aspirants concerned. In absence of the afore Rules, rather regulating the awarding of marks towards higher educational qualification, to any aspirant(s) concerned, or for awarding of marks, to the aspirant(s) concerned, on anvil of his/her publishing research material, the counsel for the petitioner cannot hence contend, that the petitioner was unfairly not awarded any proportionate marks, qua therewith, nor also he can contend that selection and appointment of respondent No. 3 becomes flawed and vitiated.

(3.) Therefore, this Court quashes the selection and appointment of co-respondent No. 2 against the advertised post. However, selection and appointment of corespondent No. 3, is affirmed. Since, the inevitable sequel of the afore drawn conclusion is that since the writ petitioner approached this Court, immediately subsequent to the selection and appointment of co-respondents No. 2 and 3, and also, when the selection and appointment, of, co-respondent No. 2, against the advertised post, is, concluded to be vitiated and flawed, thereupon, against the vacancy concerned, the respondent-University is directed to, in accordance with Rules, offer a letter of appointment to the writ petitioner, against the post of Lecturer (Zoology) in the department of Bio-Sciences, H.P. University concerned, since she applied in pursuance to the apposite advertisement, as, carried in Annexure P-1, and, her candidature became unlawfully rejected.