IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 168 of 2011 (S/B) S. K. Khandelwal .….…… Petitioner Versus Vice Chancellor Kumoun University and others ………. Respondents. …………………. Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sunil Upadhyay, Advocate for the respondents/University. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral) Selection for the post of Professor in Law was undertaken, when the petitioner also sought his selection. Selection was completed and the decision thereon was kept in a sealed cover. At this stage, a writ petition was filed by one of those, who had also participated in the selection process. On the said writ petition an order was passed directing not to open the sealed cover. As a result, the sealed cover was not opened. The said writ petition was ultimately dismissed, whereupon, the order not to open the sealed cover came to an end. In the circumstances, the sealed cover was opened, when it was found that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, the selection committee has made a recommendation to offer the post of Professor to the petitioner, only after the petitioner completing research leading to PhD degree in Law, within one year from the date of interview. It is the contention of the petitioner that said decision of the selection committee was communicated to the petitioner by a Letter dated 21st of March, 2011, whereas the interview was held on 17th of June, 2002 and accordingly, it has now become impossible for the petitioner to complete research leading to PhD degree in Law within one year from the date of interview. The fact remains that the petitioner was selected under exceptional cases, in asmuch as the petitioner did not have ten years’ experience in Postgraduate training or experience in research at the University/National Level Institutions and at the same time, he was not an outstanding scholar with established reputation having had made significant contribution to knowledge. Petitioner was considered under exceptional cases, on the basis that while teaching in the Undergraduate course for over 15 years, the petitioner had pursued research and is likely to obtain PhD. In the circumstances, the selection committee held that the petitioner would become eligible for being appointed only on completion of research leading to Ph.D degree in Law and since the requirement was urgent it had indicated that the said Ph.D degree in Law should be obtained by the petitioner within one year from the date of interview. In the circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner’s case could mature under exceptional cases, only when the petitioner had completed research leading to earning Ph.D degree in law. At the same time, since the condition of obtaining such degree within one year from the date of interview is not achievable, and since the communication in that regard was received by the petitioner only on 24th of March, 2011 on receipt of the said letter dated 21st of March, 2011, in the interest of Justice it would be appropriate on our part to declare that one year from the date of interview should be substituted by one year from the date of receipt of the said letter i.e. on or before 24th of March, 2012. With the observation as above, the writ petition is disposed of. All interim orders stands vacated. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 28.12.2011 28.12.2011 Kaushal