NISHAR AHAMED Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions can be disposed of by a common order. Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Vishav-Vidyalaya, Palampur, (hereinafter referred to as the University) issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for admission to the two years' Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course. The admissions to this course were made on the basis of a written test and interview. The criteria for a candidate to be eligible to apply was that he must have passed 10+2 examination. One of the other essential qualifications was that he should have done matriculation with science subject. Only permanent residents of Himachal Pradesh between the age of 18 to 20 years were eligible to apply.

(2.) THE petitioners being eligible for admission applied for the said course. A written test was conducted on 13.7.2003. The result of the same was declared on 11.9.2003. The petitioners cleared the written test and were called for personal interview. After the interview, the petitioners were not selected and thereafter they filed the writ petitions in this court. In the writ petitions, it has been alleged that 20% marks for interview were very much on the higher side and that the respondents have indulged in wide scale malpractices and have encouraged nepotism and unfair practices by giving higher marks in the interview to undeserving candidates whom they wanted to favour. It is also alleged that the candidates who had secured very high marks in the written test and were otherwise also well qualified were given very low marks in the interview so as to oust them. It was also alleged that on each day as many as 150-200 interviews were conducted and such interviews could not have been carried out in a fair manner. A Division Bench of this court had dealt with this matter in CWP No. 611 of 2004. The said writ petition was decided on 6.5.2005 by a Division Bench of this court to which one of us (Deepak Gupta,J.) was a member. This court held as follows:-

(3.) THE only difference between the present case and CWP No. 611 of 2004 is that in the said case the petitioner therein had first approached the learned Tribunal, whereas the present petitioners have straightaway approached this court. However, the fact remains that the selection which is under challenge started in August, 2004 and the writ petitions which we are dealing with were filed in between October and December, 2004. The persons who were selected were not made parties to the writ petitions and, therefore, we are of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to interfere with the selection which has already taken place and the persons, so selected, have already completed the two years' Veterinary Pharmacist course in August, 2006. Therefore, even though we hold that the selections made were improper, in view of the earlier judgment passed by this court, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.