IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 152 of 2011 (S/B) Dr. Chandra Pal Singh Bohra ………. Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Open University & others. ..………. Respondents Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya and Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Advocate for respondent No. 3. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) In the instant case, petitioner is aggrieved, inasmuch as, respondent University is seeking to hold written examination, in addition to interview. It is the contention of the petitioner that neither the Act nor the Statute authorises holding of written examination. It is the further contention of the petitioner that even the Regulations do not prescribe holding of written examination. It was submitted that in the advertisement, too, there was no mention that a written examination shall be held. In addition to that, it was contended that when the basic eligibility is either NET / SLET, question of holding any further written examination did not arise. It was, however, not contended that either the Act or the Statute or the Regulations barred the respondent University to hold written examination. 2. In the event, there is no bar to do a particular thing, it must be deemed that there is no impediment in doing such thing. The Regulations prescribed the basic minimum eligibility. A person, having such basic eligibility, may or may not be appointed. He will be appointed, in the event, he, along with others who have applied, can supply the advertised vacancies. In the event, he and others, who have applied, are more than the advertised vacancies, then there must be some mode of finding out, who is better amongst them. Where the law, having statutory force, do not prescribe the mode and method of ascertaining the same, a convenient 2 mode adopted to achieve the self-same object cannot be questioned. There cannot be any dispute that a written examination of such candidates is a convenient and a transparent mode of ascertaining, who is better amongst others, who are all eligible. 3. We, accordingly, refuse to interfere. The writ petition is dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 20.06.2011 20.06.2011 G