IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 12326 of 2008 Decided on: 21st July, 2011. Devender Kumar. Petitioner. Versus CSK H.P. Krishi Vishvavidyalaya. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “(i). That the qualifications prescribed as per column No.3 of Annexure A-5 dated 3.2.2005, whereby only the candidates, who had been awarded Ph.D. degree or had submitted their Ph.D. thesis upto 31st December, 1993 have been exempted from the NET examination, may be struck down. (ii) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may declare that the qualifications as prescribed, vide annexure A-1 dated 31st July, 2002 by way of substitution may be deemed to have been incorporated from the date of notification in the respondent University Statutes as well as in the advertisement i.e. Annexure A-5 making the applicant eligible for the posts of Assistant Scientists as mentioned at Sr. No. 2 & 30 of Annexure A-5. (iii) That the entire selection process undertaken by the respondent University for filling up the posts as mentioned at Sr. Nos. 2 & 30 of Annexure A-5 without calling the applicant for interview may be declared ultra vires the University Statutes, Regulations as well 2 as being contrary to the norms laid down by the University Grants Commission, vide Annexure A-1. (iv) That the respondent University may be directed to redo the entire selection process for the posts as mentioned at Sr. Nos. 2 & 30 of Annexure A-5 by calling the applicant for interview and if found eligible by the Selection Committee to appoint him with all consequential benefits. (v) That the selection of the candidates to the posts as mentioned at Sr. Nos. 2 & 30 of Annexure A-5 and further steps being taken towards their appointment and if the appointments are made, may be quashed and set aside.” 2. On 10th February, 2006, the Court passed the following order: “In view of the facts stated in this Misc. application, this application is allowed. The respondents are directed to allow the applicant to appear in the interview/test for the post of Assistant Extension Specialist (Agronomy) which is to be held on 20.2.2006. MA stands disposed of.” 3. We are informed that the petitioner has since participated in that interview. In CMP (T) No. 1562 of 2008 at paras 3 and 4, it is stated as follows: “3. That the qualification for the post under challenge has been prescribed in Section 4.4(1)(b)(ii) read with Statues 4.5(3) and the procedure for appointment is prescribed under Statutes 4.4. It is respectfully submitted that the University has its own Statutes and Rules, which are based on the guidelines of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). 4. That in view of this position as per the Statutes and guidelines of the ICAR, the applicant having not 3 passed NET is not eligible to be appointed and as such not to be considered for the said post. In case the order dated 10.2.2006 is not vacated/modified then the applicant University would be seriously prejudice and will set a bad precedent and will open unwarranted litigation by other ineligible candidates which would not be in the interest of smooth functioning of the University.” 4. In view of the stand of the University, as above, in case the petitioner has still any grievance left, he may approach the ICAR. 5. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 21st July, 2011. (Justice V.K. Sharma), (tr) Judge.